On 09/21/2010 04:20 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
OK, that's clear enough.
One note though: you won't be able to create another backend
with the same name until the frontend is gone.
If you remove it from the linked list, you'll be able to create another
backend just fine.
Regards,
Ant
On 09/21/2010 04:18 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
No, netdev_del should remove the VLANClientState from the
non_vlan_clients list.
It's no longer enumerable and it's no longer lookup-able.
The only reason it stays around it so that the device doesn't have a
reference to a free pointer. The onl
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 09:58:14AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 09:37:16PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 02:22:18PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> > > On 09/20/2010 01:59 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > >>You can also initiate the un
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 03:50:51PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 09/20/2010 03:37 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 03:38:36PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>On 09/20/2010 03:27 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>>On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 03:20:59PM -0500, Anthony Liguo
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 09:37:16PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 02:22:18PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> > On 09/20/2010 01:59 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > >>You can also initiate the unplug from the OS without the ACPI event
> > >>ever happening. I suspect tha
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 03:38:36PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 09/20/2010 03:27 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 03:20:59PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>On 09/20/2010 02:44 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> I think the only workable approach that doesn't involv
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 02:22:18PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 09/20/2010 01:59 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>You can also initiate the unplug from the OS without the ACPI event
> >>ever happening. I suspect that in our current implementation, that
> >>means that we'll automatically del
On 09/20/2010 03:37 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 03:38:36PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 09/20/2010 03:27 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 03:20:59PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 09/20/2010 02:44 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wro
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 02:28:42PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 09/20/2010 02:15 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 01:39:00PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>On 09/20/2010 01:24 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>>On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 01:14:12PM -0500, Anthony Liguo
On 09/20/2010 02:37 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 02:22:18PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 09/20/2010 01:59 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
You can also initiate the unplug from the OS without the ACPI event
ever happening. I suspect that in our current imple
On 09/20/2010 03:27 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 03:20:59PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 09/20/2010 02:44 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
I think the only workable approach that doesn't involve new commands
is to change the semantics of the existing
On 09/20/2010 02:44 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
I think the only workable approach that doesn't involve new commands
is to change the semantics of the existing ones.
Make netdev_del work regardless of whether the device is still present.
You would need to reference count the actual netdev s
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 03:20:59PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 09/20/2010 02:44 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >
> >>I think the only workable approach that doesn't involve new commands
> >>is to change the semantics of the existing ones.
> >>
> >>Make netdev_del work regardless of whether
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 03:15:45PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 09/20/2010 02:37 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 02:22:18PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>On 09/20/2010 01:59 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> You can also initiate the unplug from the OS without t
On 09/20/2010 02:15 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 01:39:00PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 09/20/2010 01:24 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 01:14:12PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 09/20/2010 12:14 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wro
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 01:39:00PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 09/20/2010 01:24 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 01:14:12PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>On 09/20/2010 12:14 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>>On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 11:56:56AM -0500, Anthony Liguo
On 09/20/2010 01:59 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
You can also initiate the unplug from the OS without the ACPI event
ever happening. I suspect that in our current implementation, that
means that we'll automatically delete the device which may have
strange effects on management tools.
So it pro
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 01:19:48PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 09/20/2010 01:14 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >Here's what makes sense to me:
> >
> >1) async device remove + poll device status/removal notification +
> >remove backend
> >
> >The management tool needs to determine when the devi
On 09/20/2010 01:24 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 01:14:12PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 09/20/2010 12:14 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 11:56:56AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 09/20/2010 11:47 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wro
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 01:14:12PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 09/20/2010 12:14 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 11:56:56AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>On 09/20/2010 11:47 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>>On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 11:41:45AM -0500, Anthony Liguo
20 matches
Mail list logo
