On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 10:25:34AM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote: > 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.
It's not a bug as such - that logic was relying on handler invoking itself being a nop and that assumption broke with dataplane rework. > Would like to see a test from someone with a large setup, anyway (and I > need to enhance my test setup, I guess...) Now that Christian sent the backtrace I feel with understand the issues, but more testing is always good :) -- MST
