On 01/07/2024 17.06, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 04:07:56PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
On 18/06/2024 14.19, Thomas Huth wrote:
The unrealize functions of the various vhost-user devices are
calling the corresponding vhost_*_set_status() functions with a
status of 0 to shut d
On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 04:07:56PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 18/06/2024 14.19, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > The unrealize functions of the various vhost-user devices are
> > calling the corresponding vhost_*_set_status() functions with a
> > status of 0 to shut down the device correctly.
> >
> > No
On 18/06/2024 14.19, Thomas Huth wrote:
The unrealize functions of the various vhost-user devices are
calling the corresponding vhost_*_set_status() functions with a
status of 0 to shut down the device correctly.
Now these vhost_*_set_status() functions all follow this scheme:
bool should_
On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 15:19, Thomas Huth wrote:
The unrealize functions of the various vhost-user devices are
calling the corresponding vhost_*_set_status() functions with a
status of 0 to shut down the device correctly.
Now these vhost_*_set_status() functions all follow this scheme:
bool sh
The unrealize functions of the various vhost-user devices are
calling the corresponding vhost_*_set_status() functions with a
status of 0 to shut down the device correctly.
Now these vhost_*_set_status() functions all follow this scheme:
bool should_start = virtio_device_should_start(vdev, st
