On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 02:26:58PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 07:36:28AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> Markus Armbruster <armbru@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> > >> > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> > > >> >> On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 08:57:52PM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote: > >> >>> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> >>> > >> >>> > libvirt has a long-standing bug: when removing the device, > >> >>> > it can request removal but does not know when the > >> >>> > removal completes. Add an event so we can fix this in a robust way. > >> >>> > > >> >>> > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> >>> > >> >>> Speaking as the acting QMP maintainer, just to avoid misunderstandings: > >> >>> there's disagreement on the event's design, namely when it should fire, > >> >>> and how it should name the device. I don't want the discussion > >> >>> preempted by a commit. > >> >> > >> >> Yes, you are asking for more functionality, but can I add this in a > >> >> follow-up commit please? I prefer this patch as is, as it can be > >> >> backported to stable branches and downstreams. Upstream a follow up > >> >> patch can add fields and more triggers which won't apply to any > >> >> downstreams. > >> > > >> > If you want to address my review comments in a separate patch, go right > >> > ahead. Please post both together as a series, for coherent review and > >> > to simplify patch tracking. > >> > > >> > I'm asking for two things: > >> > > >> > 1. Event member path. Fair to call this "more functionality". I agree > >> > that backporting it to pre-QOM versions isn't practical. > >> > > >> > 2. Sane event trigger condition: on any device deletion, not just when > >> > the device happens to have a qdev ID. This isn't "more", it's > >> > "different". > >> > >> Ack. > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Anthony Liguori > > > > > > So how does one get the path that you require? > > > > ERROR:qom/object.c:1011:object_get_canonical_path: assertion failed: > > (prop != NULL) > > Can you share your patch? This means something is wrong. All devices > have a canonical path. > > Regards, > > Anthony Liguori I figured it out - we were trying to get the path after the device was detached from the parent. We'll just have to calculate the path before unparenting and pass it in. -- MST -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list