* Thomas Huth (th...@redhat.com) wrote:
> On 02/08/2022 10.47, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > * Thomas Huth (th...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > > This reverts commit cfd66f30fb0f735df06ff4220e5000290a43dad3.
> > >
> > > The simplification of unqueue_page() introduced a bug that sometimes
> > > breaks
* Thomas Huth (th...@redhat.com) wrote:
> On 02/08/2022 10.47, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > * Thomas Huth (th...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > > This reverts commit cfd66f30fb0f735df06ff4220e5000290a43dad3.
> > >
> > > The simplification of unqueue_page() introduced a bug that sometimes
> > > breaks
On 02/08/2022 10.47, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
* Thomas Huth (th...@redhat.com) wrote:
This reverts commit cfd66f30fb0f735df06ff4220e5000290a43dad3.
The simplification of unqueue_page() introduced a bug that sometimes
breaks migration on s390x hosts. Seems like there are still pages here
th
* Thomas Huth (th...@redhat.com) wrote:
> This reverts commit cfd66f30fb0f735df06ff4220e5000290a43dad3.
>
> The simplification of unqueue_page() introduced a bug that sometimes
> breaks migration on s390x hosts. Seems like there are still pages here
> that do not have their dirty bit set.
I don't
This reverts commit cfd66f30fb0f735df06ff4220e5000290a43dad3.
The simplification of unqueue_page() introduced a bug that sometimes
breaks migration on s390x hosts. Seems like there are still pages here
that do not have their dirty bit set.
The problem is not fully understood yet, but since we are