>> Allowing guests to do that without giving them a way to figure whenever
>> it will work or not doesn't look that useful to me.
>
> OK - so maybe just have this as a guest_bug instead of an assert?
Yes, please.
thanks,
Gerd
On 04/18/12 13:00, Alon Levy wrote:
> initiate the implicit destroy ourselves.
What is the use case?
Allowing guests to do that without giving them a way to figure whenever
it will work or not doesn't look that useful to me.
cheers,
Gerd
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 12:17:15PM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> On 04/18/12 13:00, Alon Levy wrote:
> > initiate the implicit destroy ourselves.
>
> What is the use case?
Don't let guest crash the machine with bad driver. i.e. during testing I
did this inadvertently.
>
> Allowing guests to do
initiate the implicit destroy ourselves.
Signed-off-by: Alon Levy
---
hw/qxl.c | 10 +-
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/hw/qxl.c b/hw/qxl.c
index 6776a7f..1ab3348 100644
--- a/hw/qxl.c
+++ b/hw/qxl.c
@@ -1163,7 +1163,15 @@ static void qxl_create_guest_prima
