❦ 4 avril 2018 15:19 +0200, Michal Privoznik <mpriv...@redhat.com> :
> Both threads call virHashForEach(table=0x7f92fc69a480). Thread 6 was
> first so it starts iterating and sets table->iterating so later when
> thread 10 enters the function an error is reported.
>
> I guess we can go with what Dan suggested and after some rework we can
> just drop ->iterating completely.
I may have missed this suggestion. Maybe Dan only sent it to you? In the
meantime, could I change the locks around virHashForEach() and similar
as read/write locks?
--
Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits.
-- Mark Twain, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar"
_______________________________________________
libvirt-users mailing list
libvirt-users@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvirt-users
