On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 12:25:00PM -0500, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 05:04:46PM +0000, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > > > This reproduces https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1411194 > > > > Maybe it does reproduce it, maybe not... > > > > If you want a similar backtrace, this is enough: > > > > int main(void) > > { > > SpiceCoreInterface *core = basic_event_loop_init(); > > Test *test = test_new(core); > > > > vmc_instances[0].base.sif = &vmc_interface.base; > > spice_server_add_interface(test->server, &vmc_instances[0].base); > > > > spice_server_remove_interface(&vmc_instances[0].base); > > spice_server_remove_interface(&vmc_instances[0].base); > > > > return 0; > > } > > > > Christophe > > > > But this code surely don't reproduce the bug. This crashes with a backtrace similar to the one in the bug if that's what you mean by "don't reproduce the bug". > And we don't know if the old reproduce the bug as the information > provided in the bug are not enough so we can't technically reproduce > the bug unless somebody provide more information. Yes, that was my point. > > Maybe a more reasonable: > > "This attempts to reproduce https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1411194 > and some other issues adding/removing vdagent device. > The exact reproduction of the above bug is impossible as the information > provided are not enough." Yep, for example. Thinking of it, I'd also add double removal of an interface. Christophe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel