search for: virhashaddorupdateentri

❦ 4 avril 2018 15:59 +0200, Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@redhat.com> : >> I may have missed this suggestion. Maybe Dan only sent it to you? > > No, there is another thread where this issue is discussed: > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2018-April/msg00190.html > > In the >> meantime, could I change the locks around virHashForEach() and similar

❦ 4 avril 2018 16:21 +0200, Vincent Bernat <bernat@luffy.cx> : >> You can do that locally, but as a patch it's very unlikely to be >> accepted upstream because we've introduced RW locks to be able to access >> domain list from multiple threads. > > Looking a bit more, the whole "iterating" bit is currently > unsafe. First, it is racy since

❦ 4 avril 2018 17:00 +0200, Vincent Bernat <bernat@luffy.cx> : >>> You can do that locally, but as a patch it's very unlikely to be >>> accepted upstream because we've introduced RW locks to be able to access >>> domain list from multiple threads. >> >> Looking a bit more, the whole "iterating" bit is currently >> unsafe.

❦ 4 avril 2018 15:19 +0200, Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@redhat.com> : > Both threads call virHashForEach(table=0x7f92fc69a480). Thread 6 was > first so it starts iterating and sets table->iterating so later when > thread 10 enters the function an error is reported. > > I guess we can go with what Dan suggested and after some rework we can > just drop ->iterating