On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 04:01:31PM +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote: > On 26.11.2015 09:15, Cédric Bosdonnat wrote: > > As per http://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2013-July/msg01279.html, > > wait for udev events to be handled after removing a virtual NIC. > > Any udev rule associated to NIC destroy could happen to run with a new > > device with the same name that is being created. > > --- > > src/util/virnetdevveth.c | 3 +++ > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/src/util/virnetdevveth.c b/src/util/virnetdevveth.c > > index 6905168..c8a38fb 100644 > > --- a/src/util/virnetdevveth.c > > +++ b/src/util/virnetdevveth.c > > @@ -225,5 +225,8 @@ int virNetDevVethDelete(const char *veth) > > ret = 0; > > cleanup: > > virCommandFree(cmd); > > + /* Make sure the device is properly down: creating a new one > > + * with the same name could lead to troubles */ > > + virFileWaitForDevices(); > > return ret; > > } > > > > > I'm not fully convinced this is right approach. I mean, we do create > plenty of devices here and there and tear them down. How come this is > the only place causing trouble? > Then, this function you are patching is called in a loop in couple of > places. Wouldn't it be better to wait for udev after the loop and not in it? Yeah, calling udev settle in a loop is not going to be very attractive from a performance POV. I'd really rather the udev rules were fixed to skip the veth devices Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list