1:09 p.m.
Merge error?
I'll commit this in an hour or so.
From e660e3353b468cb219208a1aba9f8eca456467dd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jim Meyering <meyering(a)redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 20:08:55 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] xm_internal.c: fix locking bug: s/Unlock/Lock/
* src/xm_internal.c (xenXMDomainDefineXML): Release lock, (don't
try to acquire it) upon failure, just before returning.
---
src/xm_internal.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/xm_internal.c b/src/xm_internal.c
index 31f56b7..b420e80 100644
--- a/src/xm_internal.c
+++ b/src/xm_internal.c
@@ -2357,7 +2357,7 @@ virDomainPtr xenXMDomainDefineXML(virConnectPtr conn, const char
*xml) {
if (!(def = virDomainDefParseString(conn, priv->caps, xml,
VIR_DOMAIN_XML_INACTIVE))) {
- xenUnifiedLock(priv);
+ xenUnifiedUnlock(priv);
return (NULL);
}
--
1.6.1.399.g0d272
1:13 p.m.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 08:09:51PM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:
Merge error?
I'll commit this in an hour or so.
Go for it - how did you notice it ? Just luck ?
This is why I want to get my previous CIL locking test program integrated
into the 'make check' somehow - or at least a separate 'make lockcheck'
rule
Daniel
--
|: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|
1:16 p.m.
"Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 08:09:51PM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Merge error?
> I'll commit this in an hour or so.
Go for it - how did you notice it ? Just luck ?
Ha! I wish.
I noticed it while resolving conflicts induced as I've
merged your initial 25-cset series with what's been committed.
This is why I want to get my previous CIL locking test program
integrated
into the 'make check' somehow - or at least a separate 'make lockcheck'
rule
Yes, definitely needed.
4:50 a.m.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 07:13:47PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 08:09:51PM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Merge error?
> I'll commit this in an hour or so.
Go for it - how did you notice it ? Just luck ?
This is why I want to get my previous CIL locking test program integrated
into the 'make check' somehow - or at least a separate 'make lockcheck'
rule
I'm getting a patch ready for this.
A few things are blocking it at the moment. As I mentioned on IRC,
there is a licensing problem with the OCaml autoconf macros:
http://caml.inria.fr/pub/ml-archives/caml-list/2009/01/233b0823ddc93b9990...
This should be resolved this week.
The other thing is I found a few bugs in the code which I'm trying to
understand. This CIL stuff is bloody complicated and obscure ...
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones
virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines. Tiny program with many
powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk stats, logging, etc.
http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-top
5:33 a.m.
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:50:32AM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 07:13:47PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 08:09:51PM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:
> > Merge error?
> > I'll commit this in an hour or so.
>
> Go for it - how did you notice it ? Just luck ?
>
> This is why I want to get my previous CIL locking test program integrated
> into the 'make check' somehow - or at least a separate 'make
lockcheck'
> rule
I'm getting a patch ready for this.
A few things are blocking it at the moment. As I mentioned on IRC,
there is a licensing problem with the OCaml autoconf macros:
http://caml.inria.fr/pub/ml-archives/caml-list/2009/01/233b0823ddc93b9990...
This should be resolved this week.
The other thing is I found a few bugs in the code which I'm trying to
understand. This CIL stuff is bloody complicated and obscure ...
There are certainly some bugs in there - I'm far from convinced that I
got for/while loop handling correctly implemented. It also does not
track locks across variable assignments / aliasing.
eg if you have
virDomainObjPtr dom = NULL;
virDomainObjLock(driver->domains[0]);
dom = driver->domains[0];
...do something with 'dom'....
It will complain that 'dom' is used while unlocked, because it does not
track that 'driver->domains[0]' is the same as 'dom' in this context.
It wouldn't be too much more work to make that work better, but I didn't
bother at the time, because this scenario only occurred in one place
in the libvirt code I was checking at the time.
Daniel
--
|: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|
5779
days inactive
5783
days old
5 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Daniel P. Berrange -
Jim Meyering -
Richard W.M. Jones