On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 12:18:03PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 05/09/17 09:28, Vincent Legout wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Sorry for such a long delay. I'm still interested in having this patch
> > merged.
> >
> > I've tried to make the patch more generic and move it to xenbus as
> > discussed
On 05/09/17 09:28, Vincent Legout wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Sorry for such a long delay. I'm still interested in having this patch
> merged.
>
> I've tried to make the patch more generic and move it to xenbus as
> discussed during the Xen summit, but I'm not sure how or if it's
> possible. Would doing
Hello,
Sorry for such a long delay. I'm still interested in having this patch
merged.
I've tried to make the patch more generic and move it to xenbus as
discussed during the Xen summit, but I'm not sure how or if it's
possible. Would doing something in xenbus_otherend_changed() make sense?
But do
On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 03:30:00PM +0200, Vincent Legout wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 06:53:25AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote :
> > >>> On 05.07.17 at 14:37, wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 02:17:24AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote :
> > >> >>> On 05.07.17 at 10:08, wrote:
> > >> > Without the pat
On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 06:53:25AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote :
> >>> On 05.07.17 at 14:37, wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 02:17:24AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote :
> >> >>> On 05.07.17 at 10:08, wrote:
> >> > Without the patch, blkif_release and xlvbd_release_gendisk are never
> >> > called, and n
>>> On 05.07.17 at 14:37, wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 02:17:24AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote :
>> >>> On 05.07.17 at 10:08, wrote:
>> > Without the patch, blkif_release and xlvbd_release_gendisk are never
>> > called, and no call to blk_unregister_queue is made.
>>
>> But isn't that what needs
On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 02:17:24AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote :
> >>> On 05.07.17 at 10:08, wrote:
> > Without the patch, blkif_release and xlvbd_release_gendisk are never
> > called, and no call to blk_unregister_queue is made.
>
> But isn't that what needs to be fixed then? The device should be
>
>>> On 05.07.17 at 10:08, wrote:
> Without the patch, blkif_release and xlvbd_release_gendisk are never
> called, and no call to blk_unregister_queue is made.
But isn't that what needs to be fixed then? The device should be
removed once its last user goes away (which would be at the time
the umou
On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 05:59:27PM +0100, Roger Pau Monné wrote :
> On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 01:48:32PM +0200, Vincent Legout wrote:
> > Devices are not unmounted inside a domU after a xl block-detach.
> >
> > After xl block-detach, blkfront_closing() is called with state ==
> > XenbusStateConnecte
On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 01:48:32PM +0200, Vincent Legout wrote:
> Devices are not unmounted inside a domU after a xl block-detach.
>
> After xl block-detach, blkfront_closing() is called with state ==
> XenbusStateConnected, it detects that the device is still in use and
> only switches state to X
Devices are not unmounted inside a domU after a xl block-detach.
After xl block-detach, blkfront_closing() is called with state ==
XenbusStateConnected, it detects that the device is still in use and
only switches state to XenbusStateClosing. blkfront_closing() is called
a second time but returns
11 matches
Mail list logo