On Jun 27, 2014 3:04 PM, Sebastian Huber
wrote:
>
> On 06/27/2014 06:25 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> > I see this as two state changes within a single scheduler
> > operation but that sounds the same as your double
> > migration. We are likely replacing heir twice and tripping
> > the same conditi
On 06/27/2014 06:25 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
I see this as two state changes within a single scheduler
operation but that sounds the same as your double
migration. We are likely replacing heir twice and tripping
the same condition.
If you want a test case of this, we can get our code
cleaned up
Hi
I think we are seeing this bug based on some detection code
the Daniels added. They can explain the detection code and
send you a patch but it basically verifies that the value of
is_executing is as expected when you begin to restore the heir.
If not, it traps.
We don't see this under normal b
