❦ 4 avril 2018 15:19 +0200, Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@xxxxxxxxxx> : > Both threads call virHashForEach(table=0x7f92fc69a480). Thread 6 was > first so it starts iterating and sets table->iterating so later when > thread 10 enters the function an error is reported. > > I guess we can go with what Dan suggested and after some rework we can > just drop ->iterating completely. I may have missed this suggestion. Maybe Dan only sent it to you? In the meantime, could I change the locks around virHashForEach() and similar as read/write locks? -- Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits. -- Mark Twain, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar" _______________________________________________ libvirt-users mailing list libvirt-users@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvirt-users
