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
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
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