Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2] qom: detect bad reentrance during object_class_foreach

[Alexey Kardashevskiy]

On 12/20/2013 10:43 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> On 12/20/2013 10:29 PM, Andreas Färber wrote:
>> Am 19.12.2013 12:38, schrieb Alexey Kardashevskiy:
>>> On 12/16/2013 08:23 AM, Andreas Färber wrote:
>>>> Am 04.12.2013 06:51, schrieb Peter Crosthwaite:
>>>>> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 1:42 AM, Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>>>> From: Hervé Poussineau <address@hidden>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We should not modify the type hash table while it is being iterated on.
>>>>>> Assert that it does not happen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Hervé Poussineau <address@hidden>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>  qom/object.c | 4 ++++
>>>>>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/qom/object.c b/qom/object.c
>>>>>> index 3a43186..1dee9f0 100644
>>>>>> --- a/qom/object.c
>>>>>> +++ b/qom/object.c
>>>>>> @@ -78,8 +78,10 @@ static GHashTable *type_table_get(void)
>>>>>>      return type_table;
>>>>>>  }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +static bool enumerating = false;
>>>>>
>>>>> Global variable could probably use a more descriptive name.
>>>>
>>>> I renamed it to enumerating_types and dropped the assignment as
>>>> suggested elsewhere by Alexey (a reply here would've been nice!).
>>>
>>> Whose reply? To what? :)
>>
>> A reply of yours to Peter C.'s change request, stating that you have
>> addressed it - and in this case in which series. :)
> 
> You lost me here. I got these patches from Paolo Bonzini and I was told to
> repost them together with my other patches, that's it :)
> 
> 
>>>> I also took the liberty of inserted a white line to make the function
>>>> better readable.
>>>
>>> I do not mind, this was not my stuff :)
>>>
>>> What I wonder about is what is going to happen to the rest of what I
>>> posted? Should I wait till this qom-next gets merged to upstream and repost
>>> my patches for Alex Graf again? Thanks.
>>
>> I do intend to post a pull before Chistmas, reviewing+applying the last
>> no_user patch from Markus was one key ingredient for that.
>>
>> Not sure which rest exactly you're referring to? I need to review your
>> latest QemuOpts proposal among others. Actually I have a whole A4 page
>> written down with series I'm wading through. ;)
> 
> 
> I posted the "[PATCH v4 0/8] spapr: bootindex support" series which
> included the 2 patches you mentioned in this series, from the rest - 3 are
> for spapr and 3 are platform independent.



So? What do I do with my 6 patches from the "[PATCH v4 0/8] spapr:
bootindex support" series? Thanks!


-- 
Alexey