From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55199) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1coafU-0002XQ-PB for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 15:02:37 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1coafQ-0000TE-PH for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 15:02:36 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:47620) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1coafQ-0000T7-JW for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 15:02:32 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 19:02:28 +0000 From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" Message-ID: <20170316190227.GO2567@work-vm> References: <8fb8ed45-6de3-2b74-f5ea-44b374cabcbd@gmail.com> <87ziglnof9.fsf@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87ziglnof9.fsf@linaro.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Make qemu_thread_create return a flag to indicate if it succeeded List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Alex =?iso-8859-1?Q?Benn=E9e?= Cc: Achilles Benetopoulos , qemu-devel@nongnu.org * Alex Benn=E9e (alex.bennee@linaro.org) wrote: >=20 > Achilles Benetopoulos writes: >=20 > > I am interested in working on the BiteSized Task mentioned in the > > subject line. However, I have a question: Since the current behaviour > > of qemu_thread_create is to fail in the case of an error, then it > > seems logical to make the caller exit (in the patched version) if the > > return value of the call to qemu_thread_create indicates an error. Is > > this desirable? If so, how detailed should the error messages reporte= d > > be? If not, then I'm guessing that the desired behaviour is a more > > graceful handling of the error on a case-by-case basis? >=20 > It will depend on a case-by-case basis. For example failing to create > threads for a TCG vCPU don't really leave much for you to do expect > complain loudly and exit. I assume the more graceful handling is for > things like thread-pools where you can continue to run even without a > fully populated pool. Or on migration we can fail the migration but still leave the guest running in no worse state than it was before. Dave > -- > Alex Benn=E9e >=20 -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilbert@redhat.com / Manchester, UK