Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] virPerfEventIsEnabled: Accept NULL @perf

2017-05-04 Thread Michal Privoznik
On 05/04/2017 04:41 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 04:32:50PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote: >> After bdcf6e481 there is a crasher in libvirt. The commit assumes >> that priv->perf is always set. That is not true. For inactive >> domains, the priv->perf is not allocated as

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] virPerfEventIsEnabled: Accept NULL @perf

2017-05-04 Thread Daniel P. Berrange
On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 04:32:50PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote: > After bdcf6e481 there is a crasher in libvirt. The commit assumes > that priv->perf is always set. That is not true. For inactive > domains, the priv->perf is not allocated as it is set in > qemuProcessLaunch(). Now, usually we

[libvirt] [PATCH] virPerfEventIsEnabled: Accept NULL @perf

2017-05-04 Thread Michal Privoznik
After bdcf6e481 there is a crasher in libvirt. The commit assumes that priv->perf is always set. That is not true. For inactive domains, the priv->perf is not allocated as it is set in qemuProcessLaunch(). Now, usually we differentiate between accesses to inactive and active definition and it