Sorry, I forgot to check unit tests. Although, it's very strange that this
specific test failed while things work functionally...
> I am a bit reluctant to take patches that don't actually "fix" things.
>
> Could you add some tests to demonstrate the problems?
Ok
>> @@ -257,6 +257,7 @@ void qemu_chr_fe_set_handlers(CharBackend *b,
>> {
>> Chardev *s;
>> int fe_open;
>> + static __thread bool mux_reentered;
>
> Not very elegant. Maybe mux_chr_set_handlers() could call a refactored
> internal chr_fe_set_handlers() with an extra arg "no_open_event" ?
Agree. It would make this hack more elegant. Although, it may become
irrelevant as soon as I'll find soultion for failed docker test...
>> @@ -272,21 +272,24 @@ static void char_mux_finalize(Object *obj)
>> for (i = 0; i < d->mux_cnt; i++) {
>> CharBackend *be = d->backends[i];
>> if (be) {
>> + if (be->chr && be->chr->be_open) {
>> + qemu_chr_be_event(be->chr, CHR_EVENT_CLOSED);
>> + }
>
> It looks like this could be a seperate patch, with a seperate test.
Why this should be separate ? Do you mean that overall "opened/closed"
pairing fix should be separated to "opened" fix+test and "closed" fix+test ?
Since in next version it cannot be single patch anymore, how should I
proceed with it ? Should I publish it as patch series with same subject
marked as V2 or start new patch series?
