On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 03:19:39PM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git) wrote:
> From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert"
>
> migration_incoming_state_destroy doesn't really destroy, it cleans up.
> After a loadvm it's called, but the loadvm command can be run twice,
> and so
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 04:51:29PM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
[...]
> > PS, in migration_incoming_get_current() we do
> > mis_current.state = MIGRATION_STATUS_NONE;
> > memset(_current, 0, sizeof(MigrationIncomingState));
> >
> > and the first line there is pointless
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 03:19:39PM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git) wrote:
> From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert"
>
> migration_incoming_state_destroy doesn't really destroy, it cleans up.
> After a loadvm it's called, but the loadvm command can be run twice,
> and so
* Peter Maydell (peter.mayd...@linaro.org) wrote:
> On 25 August 2017 at 15:19, Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git)
> wrote:
> > From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert"
> >
> > migration_incoming_state_destroy doesn't really destroy, it cleans up.
> > After a loadvm
On 25 August 2017 at 15:19, Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git)
wrote:
> From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert"
>
> migration_incoming_state_destroy doesn't really destroy, it cleans up.
> After a loadvm it's called, but the loadvm command can be run twice,
> and so
From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert"
migration_incoming_state_destroy doesn't really destroy, it cleans up.
After a loadvm it's called, but the loadvm command can be run twice,
and so destroying an init-once mutex breaks on the second loadvm.
Reported-by: Stafford Horne