On Mon, 2016-03-14 at 19:40 -0400, John Ferlan wrote: > > All in all, I believe this is still correct and can be pushed > > along with patches 18 and 19 (after taking care of your > > comments there) before moving on with the more troublesome > > patch 20. Let me know whether you agree :) > > > I probably changed my mind 20 times while reviewing 20-22. I think in > retrospect my secondary comments were incorrect since we could get to > that removal of the device from the active list if the drv_name and > dom_name match. Exactly. > I think later when we move from activeList to inactiveList things are a > bit clearer, but like we've already agreed upon - this is code that once > you step in it, it's hard to get it off the bottom of your foot. > > So, I agree let's ACK this one and move on. It's worth noting that once > this patch is complete 'pcidevs' will be the list of activeDevs that > were removed. I've pushed everything up to patch 19 now - still need to go through your comments on patches 21 and 22, and of course address the problem you've spotted in patch 20. Cheers. -- Andrea Bolognani Software Engineer - Virtualization Team -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list