On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 10:21:44AM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 08:17:07AM +0100, Guido G?nther wrote:
> Hi,
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 01:38:22PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > > /* Got them all, so now open the monitor console */
> > > - ret = qemudOpenMonitor(conn, vm, monitor);
> > > + qemuDriverLock(driver);
> > > + ret = qemudOpenMonitor(conn, driver, vm, monitor, 0);
> > > + qemuDriverUnlock(driver);
> >
> > What are the lock/unlock calls here for ? They will cause the whole
> > driver to deadlock, because they're violating the rule that a domain
> > lock must not be held while acquiring the driver lock. AFAICT in the
> > qemudOpenMonitor() method you are just passing the 'driver' object
> > straight through to the 'virEventAddHandle' method - since you are
> > not using any data fields in it, locking is not required.
> I looked at HACKING and couldn't find any explanation of the locking
> rules so I added those. They're bogus. Dropped in the new attached
> version.
Yes, I need to write a doc about threading - its too long to put into
the HACKING file directly.
ACK, this looks good now.
Okay commited for Guido,
Daniel
--
Daniel Veillard | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit
http://xmlsoft.org/
daniel(a)veillard.com | Rpmfind RPM search engine
http://rpmfind.net/
http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library
http://libvirt.org/