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:


 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.


libvirt-users mailing list

Reply via email to