[PATCH for-4.5] tools/oxenstored: Fix | vs & error in fd event handling

[PATCH for-4.5] tools/oxenstored: Fix | vs & error in fd event handling

[Andrew Cooper]

This makes fields 0 and 1 true more often than they should be, resulting
problems when handling events.

Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
CC: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>
CC: Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>
CC: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
CC: Dave Scott <Dave.Scott@eu.citrix.com>
CC: Zheng Li <zheng.li3@citrix.com>
CC: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>

---

This was discovered with XenServers internal Coverity instance.  I have yet to
work out why the issue is not identified by the upstream coverity scanning.

Konrad: This is a bug in the default event handling used by oxenstored in 4.5,
as the default switched from select() to poll() in the 4.5 timeframe.  It
would appear that the negative side effects are limited to just logspam about
certain clients attempting invalid actions, but I can't rule out anything more
problematic.
---
 tools/ocaml/xenstored/select_stubs.c |    4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/ocaml/xenstored/select_stubs.c b/tools/ocaml/xenstored/select_stubs.c
index 4a8edb5..af72b84 100644
--- a/tools/ocaml/xenstored/select_stubs.c
+++ b/tools/ocaml/xenstored/select_stubs.c
@@ -56,8 +56,8 @@ CAMLprim value stub_select_on_poll(value fd_events, value timeo) {
 			events = Field(Field(fd_events, i), 1);
 
 			if (c_fds[i].revents & POLLNVAL) unix_error(EBADF, "select", Nothing);
-			Field(events, 0) = Val_bool(c_fds[i].events | POLLIN  && c_fds[i].revents & (POLLIN |POLLHUP|POLLERR));
-			Field(events, 1) = Val_bool(c_fds[i].events | POLLOUT && c_fds[i].revents & (POLLOUT|POLLHUP|POLLERR));
+			Field(events, 0) = Val_bool(c_fds[i].events & POLLIN  && c_fds[i].revents & (POLLIN |POLLHUP|POLLERR));
+			Field(events, 1) = Val_bool(c_fds[i].events & POLLOUT && c_fds[i].revents & (POLLOUT|POLLHUP|POLLERR));
 			Field(events, 2) = Val_bool(c_fds[i].revents & POLLPRI);
 
 		}
-- 
1.7.10.4

Re: [PATCH for-4.5] tools/oxenstored: Fix | vs & error in fd event handling

[Zheng Li]

On 26/11/2014 15:09, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> This makes fields 0 and 1 true more often than they should be, resulting
> problems when handling events.

Indeed, looks like a mistake I made when rewriting the logic terms lately. The result is POLLUP or POLLERR events being returned in more categories than we'd interest. Thanks for fixing this!

Acked-by: Zheng Li <dev@zheng.li>


Cheers,
Zheng


> ---
>
> This was discovered with XenServers internal Coverity instance.  I have yet to
> work out why the issue is not identified by the upstream coverity scanning.
>
> Konrad: This is a bug in the default event handling used by oxenstored in 4.5,
> as the default switched from select() to poll() in the 4.5 timeframe.  It
> would appear that the negative side effects are limited to just logspam about
> certain clients attempting invalid actions, but I can't rule out anything more
> problematic.
> ---
>   tools/ocaml/xenstored/select_stubs.c |    4 ++--
>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/ocaml/xenstored/select_stubs.c b/tools/ocaml/xenstored/select_stubs.c
> index 4a8edb5..af72b84 100644
> --- a/tools/ocaml/xenstored/select_stubs.c
> +++ b/tools/ocaml/xenstored/select_stubs.c
> @@ -56,8 +56,8 @@ CAMLprim value stub_select_on_poll(value fd_events, value timeo) {
>   			events = Field(Field(fd_events, i), 1);
>
>   			if (c_fds[i].revents & POLLNVAL) unix_error(EBADF, "select", Nothing);
> -			Field(events, 0) = Val_bool(c_fds[i].events | POLLIN  && c_fds[i].revents & (POLLIN |POLLHUP|POLLERR));
> -			Field(events, 1) = Val_bool(c_fds[i].events | POLLOUT && c_fds[i].revents & (POLLOUT|POLLHUP|POLLERR));
> +			Field(events, 0) = Val_bool(c_fds[i].events & POLLIN  && c_fds[i].revents & (POLLIN |POLLHUP|POLLERR));
> +			Field(events, 1) = Val_bool(c_fds[i].events & POLLOUT && c_fds[i].revents & (POLLOUT|POLLHUP|POLLERR));
>   			Field(events, 2) = Val_bool(c_fds[i].revents & POLLPRI);
>
>   		}
>

Re: [PATCH for-4.5] tools/oxenstored: Fix | vs & error in fd event handling

[Dave Scott]

> On 26 Nov 2014, at 15:38, Zheng Li <dev@zheng.li> wrote:
> 
> On 26/11/2014 15:09, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> This makes fields 0 and 1 true more often than they should be, resulting
>> problems when handling events.
> 
> Indeed, looks like a mistake I made when rewriting the logic terms lately. The result is POLLUP or POLLERR events being returned in more categories than we'd interest. Thanks for fixing this!
> 
> Acked-by: Zheng Li <dev@zheng.li>

This also looks fine to me

Acked-by: David Scott <dave.scott@citrix.com>

Cheers,
Dave

> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Zheng
> 
> 
>> ---
>> 
>> This was discovered with XenServers internal Coverity instance.  I have yet to
>> work out why the issue is not identified by the upstream coverity scanning.
>> 
>> Konrad: This is a bug in the default event handling used by oxenstored in 4.5,
>> as the default switched from select() to poll() in the 4.5 timeframe.  It
>> would appear that the negative side effects are limited to just logspam about
>> certain clients attempting invalid actions, but I can't rule out anything more
>> problematic.
>> ---
>>  tools/ocaml/xenstored/select_stubs.c |    4 ++--
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/tools/ocaml/xenstored/select_stubs.c b/tools/ocaml/xenstored/select_stubs.c
>> index 4a8edb5..af72b84 100644
>> --- a/tools/ocaml/xenstored/select_stubs.c
>> +++ b/tools/ocaml/xenstored/select_stubs.c
>> @@ -56,8 +56,8 @@ CAMLprim value stub_select_on_poll(value fd_events, value timeo) {
>>  			events = Field(Field(fd_events, i), 1);
>> 
>>  			if (c_fds[i].revents & POLLNVAL) unix_error(EBADF, "select", Nothing);
>> -			Field(events, 0) = Val_bool(c_fds[i].events | POLLIN  && c_fds[i].revents & (POLLIN |POLLHUP|POLLERR));
>> -			Field(events, 1) = Val_bool(c_fds[i].events | POLLOUT && c_fds[i].revents & (POLLOUT|POLLHUP|POLLERR));
>> +			Field(events, 0) = Val_bool(c_fds[i].events & POLLIN  && c_fds[i].revents & (POLLIN |POLLHUP|POLLERR));
>> +			Field(events, 1) = Val_bool(c_fds[i].events & POLLOUT && c_fds[i].revents & (POLLOUT|POLLHUP|POLLERR));
>>  			Field(events, 2) = Val_bool(c_fds[i].revents & POLLPRI);
>> 
>>  		}
>> 

Re: [PATCH for-4.5] tools/oxenstored: Fix | vs & error in fd event handling

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk]

On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 06:24:11PM +0000, Dave Scott wrote:
> 
> > On 26 Nov 2014, at 15:38, Zheng Li <dev@zheng.li> wrote:
> > 
> > On 26/11/2014 15:09, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> >> This makes fields 0 and 1 true more often than they should be, resulting
> >> problems when handling events.
> > 
> > Indeed, looks like a mistake I made when rewriting the logic terms lately. The result is POLLUP or POLLERR events being returned in more categories than we'd interest. Thanks for fixing this!
> > 
> > Acked-by: Zheng Li <dev@zheng.li>
> 
> This also looks fine to me
> 
> Acked-by: David Scott <dave.scott@citrix.com>

Would it be possible to get an Reviewed-by please?

Thank you.
> 
> Cheers,
> Dave
> 
> > 
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Zheng
> > 
> > 
> >> ---
> >> 
> >> This was discovered with XenServers internal Coverity instance.  I have yet to
> >> work out why the issue is not identified by the upstream coverity scanning.
> >> 
> >> Konrad: This is a bug in the default event handling used by oxenstored in 4.5,
> >> as the default switched from select() to poll() in the 4.5 timeframe.  It
> >> would appear that the negative side effects are limited to just logspam about
> >> certain clients attempting invalid actions, but I can't rule out anything more
> >> problematic.
> >> ---
> >>  tools/ocaml/xenstored/select_stubs.c |    4 ++--
> >>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >> 
> >> diff --git a/tools/ocaml/xenstored/select_stubs.c b/tools/ocaml/xenstored/select_stubs.c
> >> index 4a8edb5..af72b84 100644
> >> --- a/tools/ocaml/xenstored/select_stubs.c
> >> +++ b/tools/ocaml/xenstored/select_stubs.c
> >> @@ -56,8 +56,8 @@ CAMLprim value stub_select_on_poll(value fd_events, value timeo) {
> >>  			events = Field(Field(fd_events, i), 1);
> >> 
> >>  			if (c_fds[i].revents & POLLNVAL) unix_error(EBADF, "select", Nothing);
> >> -			Field(events, 0) = Val_bool(c_fds[i].events | POLLIN  && c_fds[i].revents & (POLLIN |POLLHUP|POLLERR));
> >> -			Field(events, 1) = Val_bool(c_fds[i].events | POLLOUT && c_fds[i].revents & (POLLOUT|POLLHUP|POLLERR));
> >> +			Field(events, 0) = Val_bool(c_fds[i].events & POLLIN  && c_fds[i].revents & (POLLIN |POLLHUP|POLLERR));
> >> +			Field(events, 1) = Val_bool(c_fds[i].events & POLLOUT && c_fds[i].revents & (POLLOUT|POLLHUP|POLLERR));
> >>  			Field(events, 2) = Val_bool(c_fds[i].revents & POLLPRI);
> >> 
> >>  		}
> >> 
> 

Re: [PATCH for-4.5] tools/oxenstored: Fix | vs & error in fd event handling

[Andrew Cooper]

On 26/11/14 18:41, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 06:24:11PM +0000, Dave Scott wrote:
>>> On 26 Nov 2014, at 15:38, Zheng Li <dev@zheng.li> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 26/11/2014 15:09, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>>> This makes fields 0 and 1 true more often than they should be, resulting
>>>> problems when handling events.
>>> Indeed, looks like a mistake I made when rewriting the logic terms lately. The result is POLLUP or POLLERR events being returned in more categories than we'd interest. Thanks for fixing this!
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Zheng Li <dev@zheng.li>
>> This also looks fine to me
>>
>> Acked-by: David Scott <dave.scott@citrix.com>
> Would it be possible to get an Reviewed-by please?

Strictly speaking Zheng, not being a maintainer, can't ack the patch,
given what I believe to be Xens current rules for these things. 
However, as the author of the code and comment in this thread, his ack
can reasonably be considered equivalent to a  Reviewed-by:  I guess this
is just a matter of semantics.

Furthermore, as we all share an office, I have already been through this
process informally, and have confirmed the fix under my Xen-4.5 based
XenServer branch.  There appear to be 100% less "error -EINVAL" messages
in the logs.

~Andrew

Re: [PATCH for-4.5] tools/oxenstored: Fix | vs & error in fd event handling

[Zheng Li]

On 26/11/2014 19:03, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> Strictly speaking Zheng, not being a maintainer, can't ack the patch,
> given what I believe to be Xens current rules for these things.
> However, as the author of the code and comment in this thread, his ack
> can reasonably be considered equivalent to a  Reviewed-by:  I guess this
> is just a matter of semantics.
>
> Furthermore, as we all share an office, I have already been through this
> process informally, and have confirmed the fix under my Xen-4.5 based
> XenServer branch.  There appear to be 100% less "error -EINVAL" messages
> in the logs.
>

Agreed. I was a bit confused by the "XXX-by" semantics. As Andy mentioned, he already went through the patch with me offline, so here is the line if more appropriate:

Reviewed-by: Zheng Li <dev@zheng.li>

Thanks,
Zheng

Re: [PATCH for-4.5] tools/oxenstored: Fix | vs & error in fd event handling

[Dave Scott]

> On 26 Nov 2014, at 18:41, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 06:24:11PM +0000, Dave Scott wrote:
>> 
>>> On 26 Nov 2014, at 15:38, Zheng Li <dev@zheng.li> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 26/11/2014 15:09, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>>> This makes fields 0 and 1 true more often than they should be, resulting
>>>> problems when handling events.
>>> 
>>> Indeed, looks like a mistake I made when rewriting the logic terms lately. The result is POLLUP or POLLERR events being returned in more categories than we'd interest. Thanks for fixing this!
>>> 
>>> Acked-by: Zheng Li <dev@zheng.li>
>> 
>> This also looks fine to me
>> 
>> Acked-by: David Scott <dave.scott@citrix.com>
> 
> Would it be possible to get an Reviewed-by please?

I’ll certainly offer

Reviewed-by: David Scott <dave.scott@citrix.com>

Cheers,
Dave

> 
> Thank you.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Dave
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Zheng
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> ---
>>>> 
>>>> This was discovered with XenServers internal Coverity instance.  I have yet to
>>>> work out why the issue is not identified by the upstream coverity scanning.
>>>> 
>>>> Konrad: This is a bug in the default event handling used by oxenstored in 4.5,
>>>> as the default switched from select() to poll() in the 4.5 timeframe.  It
>>>> would appear that the negative side effects are limited to just logspam about
>>>> certain clients attempting invalid actions, but I can't rule out anything more
>>>> problematic.
>>>> ---
>>>> tools/ocaml/xenstored/select_stubs.c |    4 ++--
>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>> 
>>>> diff --git a/tools/ocaml/xenstored/select_stubs.c b/tools/ocaml/xenstored/select_stubs.c
>>>> index 4a8edb5..af72b84 100644
>>>> --- a/tools/ocaml/xenstored/select_stubs.c
>>>> +++ b/tools/ocaml/xenstored/select_stubs.c
>>>> @@ -56,8 +56,8 @@ CAMLprim value stub_select_on_poll(value fd_events, value timeo) {
>>>> 			events = Field(Field(fd_events, i), 1);
>>>> 
>>>> 			if (c_fds[i].revents & POLLNVAL) unix_error(EBADF, "select", Nothing);
>>>> -			Field(events, 0) = Val_bool(c_fds[i].events | POLLIN  && c_fds[i].revents & (POLLIN |POLLHUP|POLLERR));
>>>> -			Field(events, 1) = Val_bool(c_fds[i].events | POLLOUT && c_fds[i].revents & (POLLOUT|POLLHUP|POLLERR));
>>>> +			Field(events, 0) = Val_bool(c_fds[i].events & POLLIN  && c_fds[i].revents & (POLLIN |POLLHUP|POLLERR));
>>>> +			Field(events, 1) = Val_bool(c_fds[i].events & POLLOUT && c_fds[i].revents & (POLLOUT|POLLHUP|POLLERR));
>>>> 			Field(events, 2) = Val_bool(c_fds[i].revents & POLLPRI);
>>>> 
>>>> 		}
>>>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [PATCH for-4.5] tools/oxenstored: Fix | vs & error in fd event handling

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk]

On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 08:44:41PM +0000, Dave Scott wrote:
> 
> > On 26 Nov 2014, at 18:41, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 06:24:11PM +0000, Dave Scott wrote:
> >> 
> >>> On 26 Nov 2014, at 15:38, Zheng Li <dev@zheng.li> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> On 26/11/2014 15:09, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> >>>> This makes fields 0 and 1 true more often than they should be, resulting
> >>>> problems when handling events.
> >>> 
> >>> Indeed, looks like a mistake I made when rewriting the logic terms lately. The result is POLLUP or POLLERR events being returned in more categories than we'd interest. Thanks for fixing this!
> >>> 
> >>> Acked-by: Zheng Li <dev@zheng.li>
> >> 
> >> This also looks fine to me
> >> 
> >> Acked-by: David Scott <dave.scott@citrix.com>
> > 
> > Would it be possible to get an Reviewed-by please?
> 
> I’ll certainly offer
> 
> Reviewed-by: David Scott <dave.scott@citrix.com>

OK, Release-Acked-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>

Thank you.
> 
> Cheers,
> Dave
> 
> > 
> > Thank you.
> >> 
> >> Cheers,
> >> Dave
> >> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Zheng
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>>> ---
> >>>> 
> >>>> This was discovered with XenServers internal Coverity instance.  I have yet to
> >>>> work out why the issue is not identified by the upstream coverity scanning.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Konrad: This is a bug in the default event handling used by oxenstored in 4.5,
> >>>> as the default switched from select() to poll() in the 4.5 timeframe.  It
> >>>> would appear that the negative side effects are limited to just logspam about
> >>>> certain clients attempting invalid actions, but I can't rule out anything more
> >>>> problematic.
> >>>> ---
> >>>> tools/ocaml/xenstored/select_stubs.c |    4 ++--
> >>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>>> 
> >>>> diff --git a/tools/ocaml/xenstored/select_stubs.c b/tools/ocaml/xenstored/select_stubs.c
> >>>> index 4a8edb5..af72b84 100644
> >>>> --- a/tools/ocaml/xenstored/select_stubs.c
> >>>> +++ b/tools/ocaml/xenstored/select_stubs.c
> >>>> @@ -56,8 +56,8 @@ CAMLprim value stub_select_on_poll(value fd_events, value timeo) {
> >>>> 			events = Field(Field(fd_events, i), 1);
> >>>> 
> >>>> 			if (c_fds[i].revents & POLLNVAL) unix_error(EBADF, "select", Nothing);
> >>>> -			Field(events, 0) = Val_bool(c_fds[i].events | POLLIN  && c_fds[i].revents & (POLLIN |POLLHUP|POLLERR));
> >>>> -			Field(events, 1) = Val_bool(c_fds[i].events | POLLOUT && c_fds[i].revents & (POLLOUT|POLLHUP|POLLERR));
> >>>> +			Field(events, 0) = Val_bool(c_fds[i].events & POLLIN  && c_fds[i].revents & (POLLIN |POLLHUP|POLLERR));
> >>>> +			Field(events, 1) = Val_bool(c_fds[i].events & POLLOUT && c_fds[i].revents & (POLLOUT|POLLHUP|POLLERR));
> >>>> 			Field(events, 2) = Val_bool(c_fds[i].revents & POLLPRI);
> >>>> 
> >>>> 		}
> >>>> 
> >> 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Xen-devel mailing list
> > Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
> > http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
> 

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [PATCH for-4.5] tools/oxenstored: Fix | vs & error in fd event handling

[Ian Campbell]

On Wed, 2014-11-26 at 19:03 +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 26/11/14 18:41, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 06:24:11PM +0000, Dave Scott wrote:
> >>> On 26 Nov 2014, at 15:38, Zheng Li <dev@zheng.li> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 26/11/2014 15:09, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> >>>> This makes fields 0 and 1 true more often than they should be, resulting
> >>>> problems when handling events.
> >>> Indeed, looks like a mistake I made when rewriting the logic terms lately. The result is POLLUP or POLLERR events being returned in more categories than we'd interest. Thanks for fixing this!
> >>>
> >>> Acked-by: Zheng Li <dev@zheng.li>
> >> This also looks fine to me
> >>
> >> Acked-by: David Scott <dave.scott@citrix.com>
> > Would it be possible to get an Reviewed-by please?
> 
> Strictly speaking Zheng, not being a maintainer, can't ack the patch,
> given what I believe to be Xens current rules for these things. 
> However, as the author of the code and comment in this thread, his ack
> can reasonably be considered equivalent to a  Reviewed-by:  I guess this
> is just a matter of semantics.

In theory/According to
https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/SubmittingPatches Reviewed-by
"indicates that the patch has been reviewed and found
acceptable according to the Reviewer's Statement:

	Reviewer's statement of oversight

	By offering my Reviewed-by: tag, I state that:

 	 (a) I have carried out a technical review of this patch to
	     evaluate its appropriateness and readiness for inclusion into
	     the mainline kernel.

	 (b) Any problems, concerns, or questions relating to the patch
	     have been communicated back to the submitter.  I am satisfied
	     with the submitter's response to my comments.

	 (c) While there may be things that could be improved with this
	     submission, I believe that it is, at this time, (1) a
	     worthwhile modification to the kernel, and (2) free of known
	     issues which would argue against its inclusion.

	 (d) While I have reviewed the patch and believe it to be sound, I
	     do not (unless explicitly stated elsewhere) make any
	     warranties or guarantees that it will achieve its stated
	     purpose or function properly in any given situation.

Whereas Acked-by is just an indication of no-objections or fine-by-me
from the maintainer or possibly a previous reviewer indicating that
their previous concerns have been removed.

That said when they come from someone relevant to the code at hand (as
e.g. Zheng is here) personally I mostly treat them the same (and I
pretty much always say Acked-by not Reviewed-by because my fingers just
do that by default). I think there are others in the project who do
treat them as distinct.

All in all I think it's safe to say that the XenProject neither
implements any distinction in a very strict way in practice nor has a
very consistent view on the differences between them. Personally I don't
think the distinction really matters a great deal and we have more than
enough rules and process as it is without getting too worked up about
Acked vs Reviewed by.

Ian.

Re: [PATCH for-4.5] tools/oxenstored: Fix | vs & error in fd event handling

[Ian Campbell]

On Wed, 2014-11-26 at 16:09 -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 08:44:41PM +0000, Dave Scott wrote:
> > 
> > > On 26 Nov 2014, at 18:41, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 06:24:11PM +0000, Dave Scott wrote:
> > >> 
> > >>> On 26 Nov 2014, at 15:38, Zheng Li <dev@zheng.li> wrote:
> > >>> 
> > >>> On 26/11/2014 15:09, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > >>>> This makes fields 0 and 1 true more often than they should be, resulting
> > >>>> problems when handling events.
> > >>> 
> > >>> Indeed, looks like a mistake I made when rewriting the logic terms lately. The result is POLLUP or POLLERR events being returned in more categories than we'd interest. Thanks for fixing this!
> > >>> 
> > >>> Acked-by: Zheng Li <dev@zheng.li>
> > >> 
> > >> This also looks fine to me
> > >> 
> > >> Acked-by: David Scott <dave.scott@citrix.com>
> > > 
> > > Would it be possible to get an Reviewed-by please?
> > 
> > I’ll certainly offer
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: David Scott <dave.scott@citrix.com>
> 
> OK, Release-Acked-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>

Applied, thanks.



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel