On 04/04/2018 03:48 PM, Vincent Bernat wrote: > ❦ 4 avril 2018 15:19 +0200, Michal Privoznik <mpriv...@redhat.com> : > >> Both threads call virHashForEach(table=0x7f92fc69a480). Thread 6 was >> first so it starts iterating and sets table->iterating so later when >> thread 10 enters the function an error is reported. >> >> I guess we can go with what Dan suggested and after some rework we can >> just drop ->iterating completely. > > I may have missed this suggestion. Maybe Dan only sent it to you?
No, there is another thread where this issue is discussed: https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2018-April/msg00190.html In the > meantime, could I change the locks around virHashForEach() and similar > as read/write locks? > You can do that locally, but as a patch it's very unlikely to be accepted upstream because we've introduced RW locks to be able to access domain list from multiple threads. Michal _______________________________________________ libvirt-users mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvirt-users