On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 09:48:25AM +, Durrant, Paul wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Marek Marczykowski-Górecki
> >
> > On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 09:34:45AM +, Durrant, Paul wrote:
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Marek Marczykowski-Górecki
> > > >
> > > > On
On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 07:57:16AM +0100, Paul Durrant wrote:
> On 17/05/2021 22:43, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
> > On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 12:46:38PM +, Durrant, Paul wrote:
> > > I really can't remember any detail. Perhaps try reverting both patches
> > > then and check that the unbin
...@vger.kernel.org; wei@kernel.org
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [PATCH] xen-netback: Check for hotplug-status existence
before watching
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 12:40:54PM +0200, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 07:06:55AM +, Durrant, Paul wrote:
-Original Message
On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 10:51:38PM +0100, Michael Brown wrote:
> On 17/05/2021 22:43, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
> > In any case, the issue is not calling the hotplug script, responsible
> > for configuring newly created vif interface. Not kernel waiting for it.
> > So, I think both commits
On 17/05/2021 22:43, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
In any case, the issue is not calling the hotplug script, responsible
for configuring newly created vif interface. Not kernel waiting for it.
So, I think both commits should still be reverted.
Did you also test the ability for a domU to hav
org;
> > net...@vger.kernel.org; wei....@kernel.org
> > Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [PATCH] xen-netback: Check for hotplug-status
> > existence before watching
> >
> > On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 12:40:54PM +0200, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 11, 202
arczykowski-Górecki
> > > > Sent: 10 May 2021 20:43
> > > > To: Michael Brown ; p...@xen.org
> > > > Cc: p...@xen.org; xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org;
> > > > net...@vger.kernel.org; wei....@kernel.org;
> Durrant,
> > > > Paul
> >
ichael Brown ; p...@xen.org
> > > Cc: p...@xen.org; xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; net...@vger.kernel.org;
> > > wei@kernel.org; Durrant,
> > > Paul
> > > Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [PATCH] xen-netback: Check for hotplug-status
> > > existence before
l.org;
> > wei@kernel.org; Durrant,
> > Paul
> > Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [PATCH] xen-netback: Check for hotplug-status
> > existence before watching
> >
> > On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 08:06:55PM +0100, Michael Brown wrote:
> > > If you have a sugg
> -Original Message-
> From: Marek Marczykowski-Górecki
> Sent: 10 May 2021 20:43
> To: Michael Brown ; p...@xen.org
> Cc: p...@xen.org; xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; net...@vger.kernel.org;
> wei@kernel.org; Durrant,
> Paul
> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [PATCH
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 08:06:55PM +0100, Michael Brown wrote:
> If you have a suggested patch, I'm happy to test that it doesn't reintroduce
> the regression bug that was fixed by this commit.
Actually, I've just tested with a simple reloading xen-netfront module. It
seems in this case, the hotpl
On 10/05/2021 19:53, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 07:47:01PM +0100, Michael Brown wrote:
That doesn't sound plausible to me. In the setup as you describe, how is
the kernel expected to differentiate between "hotplug script has not yet
created the node" and "hotplug
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 07:47:01PM +0100, Michael Brown wrote:
> On 10/05/2021 19:32, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 04:25:12PM +0100, Michael Brown wrote:
> > > The logic in connect() is currently written with the assumption that
> > > xenbus_watch_pathfmt() will ret
On 10/05/2021 19:32, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 04:25:12PM +0100, Michael Brown wrote:
The logic in connect() is currently written with the assumption that
xenbus_watch_pathfmt() will return an error for a node that does not
exist. This assumption is incorrect: xe
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 04:25:12PM +0100, Michael Brown wrote:
> The logic in connect() is currently written with the assumption that
> xenbus_watch_pathfmt() will return an error for a node that does not
> exist. This assumption is incorrect: xenstore does allow a watch to
> be registered for a n
Hello:
This patch was applied to netdev/net.git (refs/heads/master):
On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 16:25:12 +0100 you wrote:
> The logic in connect() is currently written with the assumption that
> xenbus_watch_pathfmt() will return an error for a node that does not
> exist. This assumption is incorrect:
On 13/04/2021 16:25, Michael Brown wrote:
The logic in connect() is currently written with the assumption that
xenbus_watch_pathfmt() will return an error for a node that does not
exist. This assumption is incorrect: xenstore does allow a watch to
be registered for a nonexistent node (and will s
The logic in connect() is currently written with the assumption that
xenbus_watch_pathfmt() will return an error for a node that does not
exist. This assumption is incorrect: xenstore does allow a watch to
be registered for a nonexistent node (and will send notifications
should the node be subsequ
18 matches
Mail list logo
