On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 6:39 PM, Juan Quintela wrote:
> Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> On 11/03/2010 10:12 AM, Juan Quintela wrote:
>>> Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>>
On 11/03/2010 09:29 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> Since commit 4bed9837309e58d208183f81d8344996744292cf an .fd_read()
> ha
Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 11/03/2010 10:12 AM, Juan Quintela wrote:
>> Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/03/2010 09:29 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>>>
Since commit 4bed9837309e58d208183f81d8344996744292cf an .fd_read()
handler that deletes its IOHandler is exposed to .fd_wr
On 11/03/2010 10:12 AM, Juan Quintela wrote:
Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 11/03/2010 09:29 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
Since commit 4bed9837309e58d208183f81d8344996744292cf an .fd_read()
handler that deletes its IOHandler is exposed to .fd_write() being
called on the deleted IOHandler.
Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 11/03/2010 09:29 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>> Since commit 4bed9837309e58d208183f81d8344996744292cf an .fd_read()
>> handler that deletes its IOHandler is exposed to .fd_write() being
>> called on the deleted IOHandler.
>>
>> This patch fixes deletion so that .fd_read(
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Juan Quintela wrote:
> Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>> Since commit 4bed9837309e58d208183f81d8344996744292cf an .fd_read()
>> handler that deletes its IOHandler is exposed to .fd_write() being
>> called on the deleted IOHandler.
>>
>> This patch fixes deletion so that .f
Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> Since commit 4bed9837309e58d208183f81d8344996744292cf an .fd_read()
> handler that deletes its IOHandler is exposed to .fd_write() being
> called on the deleted IOHandler.
>
> This patch fixes deletion so that .fd_read() and .fd_write() are never
> called on an IOHandler t