From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:44183) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RLu23-0001PM-MB for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 03 Nov 2011 05:56:24 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RLu22-0006fT-Tj for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 03 Nov 2011 05:56:23 -0400 Received: from mel.act-europe.fr ([194.98.77.210]:49130) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RLu22-0006f8-O4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 03 Nov 2011 05:56:22 -0400 Message-ID: <4EB26536.1090908@adacore.com> Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 10:56:06 +0100 From: Fabien Chouteau MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4EB1640F.2090604@adacore.com> <4EB1796B.7050901@adacore.com> <4EB181C4.1090501@redhat.com> <4EB19F6B.8020907@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Multiple instances of Qemu on Windows multicore List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: Paolo Bonzini , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 02/11/2011 20:57, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 2 November 2011 19:52, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> (Also, the unchaining is safer, or even completely safe in system mode than >> it is with pthreads). > > I don't think it's completely safe, you're just a bit less likely > to get bitten than if you're trying to run a linux-user-mode > multithreaded guest binary. Do you think it's possible to make the code safe? -- Fabien Chouteau