On Tue, 2023-06-20 at 13:19 +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 at 18:06, Peter Maydell
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2 May 2023 at 18:08, Peter Maydell
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 at 18:27, David Woodhouse
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: David Woodhouse
>
> > > Hi;
On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 at 18:06, Peter Maydell wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2 May 2023 at 18:08, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 at 18:27, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > >
> > > From: David Woodhouse
> > Hi; Coverity's "is there missing error handling?"
> > heuristic fired for a change in this c
On Tue, 2 May 2023 at 18:08, Peter Maydell wrote:
>
> On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 at 18:27, David Woodhouse wrote:
> >
> > From: David Woodhouse
> >
> > Firing watches on the nodes that still exist is relatively easy; just
> > walk the tree and look at the nodes with refcount of one.
> >
> > Firing watch
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 at 18:27, David Woodhouse wrote:
>
> From: David Woodhouse
>
> Firing watches on the nodes that still exist is relatively easy; just
> walk the tree and look at the nodes with refcount of one.
>
> Firing watches on *deleted* nodes is more fun. We add 'modified_in_tx'
> and 'del
From: David Woodhouse
Firing watches on the nodes that still exist is relatively easy; just
walk the tree and look at the nodes with refcount of one.
Firing watches on *deleted* nodes is more fun. We add 'modified_in_tx'
and 'deleted_in_tx' flags to each node. Nodes with those flags cannot
be sh
