On 18/10/2019 18:11, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 11:03:43PM +0800, Chao Gao wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 06:13:43PM +0200, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
>>> Hi Anthony / Chao,
>>>
>>> I have to come back to this, a bit because perhaps there is an underlying
>>> issue.
>>>
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 11:03:43PM +0800, Chao Gao wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 06:13:43PM +0200, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
> >Hi Anthony / Chao,
> >
> >I have to come back to this, a bit because perhaps there is an underlying
> >issue.
> >While it earlier occurred to me that the VM to which
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 06:59:37PM +0200, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
>On 14/10/2019 17:03, Chao Gao wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 06:13:43PM +0200, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
>>> On 01/10/2019 12:35, Anthony PERARD wrote:
Rewrite of the commit message:
Before the problematic
On 15/10/2019 18:59, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
> On 14/10/2019 17:03, Chao Gao wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 06:13:43PM +0200, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
>>> On 01/10/2019 12:35, Anthony PERARD wrote:
Rewrite of the commit message:
Before the problematic commit, libxl used to
On 14/10/2019 17:03, Chao Gao wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 06:13:43PM +0200, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
>> On 01/10/2019 12:35, Anthony PERARD wrote:
>>> Rewrite of the commit message:
>>>
>>> Before the problematic commit, libxl used to ignore error when
>>> destroying (force == true) a
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 06:13:43PM +0200, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
>On 01/10/2019 12:35, Anthony PERARD wrote:
>> Rewrite of the commit message:
>>
>> Before the problematic commit, libxl used to ignore error when
>> destroying (force == true) a passthrough device, especially error that
>>
On 01/10/2019 12:35, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> Rewrite of the commit message:
>
> Before the problematic commit, libxl used to ignore error when
> destroying (force == true) a passthrough device, especially error that
> happens when dealing with the DM.
>
> Since fae4880c45fe, if the DM failed to
Rewrite of the commit message:
Before the problematic commit, libxl used to ignore error when
destroying (force == true) a passthrough device, especially error that
happens when dealing with the DM.
Since fae4880c45fe, if the DM failed to detach the pci device within
the allowed time, the timed
On 30/09/2019 19:23, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> Before the problematic commit, libxl used to ignore error when
> destroying (force == true) a passthrough device. If the DM failed to
> detach the pci device within the allowed time, the timed out error
> raised skip part of pci_remove_*, but also raise
Before the problematic commit, libxl used to ignore error when
destroying (force == true) a passthrough device. If the DM failed to
detach the pci device within the allowed time, the timed out error
raised skip part of pci_remove_*, but also raise the error up to the
caller of
10 matches
Mail list logo
