On Mon, 4 Apr 2016 10:19:42 +0200 Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 04/04/2016 10:10, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > > This will be fixed by Cornelia's rework, and is an example of why I > > > think patch 1/9 is a good idea (IOW, assign=false is harmful). > > > > So what do we want to do for 2.6? The aio handler rework (without the > > cleanup) is needed. Do we want to include the minimal version of my > > "keep handler assigned" patch (the one without the api rework) as well, > > as it fixes a latent bug? > > I would, but Michael is more conservative in general. Since the > difference between a bug and a feature is very fuzzy here, I would just > omit my patch 9. I'd omit patch 9 as well, but the knowledge that the "handler deassigned" bug is still lurking makes me uncomfortable. Would like to see a test from someone with a large setup, anyway (and I need to enhance my test setup, I guess...)
