From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53794) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YIGpj-00042b-Pq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 08:14:32 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YIGpi-00016z-Qw for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 08:14:31 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:35512) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YIGpi-00016t-K8 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 08:14:30 -0500 Message-ID: <54CF782B.3060800@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 14:14:19 +0100 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1421428797-23697-1-git-send-email-fred.konrad@greensocs.com> <1421428797-23697-10-git-send-email-fred.konrad@greensocs.com> <54CF4B78.5040102@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 09/10] cpu: remove exit_request global. List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: mttcg@greensocs.com, "J. Kiszka" , Mark Burton , Alexander Graf , QEMU Developers , =?UTF-8?B?S09OUkFEIEZyw6lkw6lyaWM=?= On 02/02/2015 14:12, Peter Maydell wrote: > > In particular, you can do it while you are under the big QEMU lock. > > ...but this is a signal handler, so we can't guarantee that the > thread holds the big lock. > > ...and if we can iterate over CPU lists in signal handlers, > the correct approach is probably to use the existing exit_request > flag rather than adding another one. (Needs investigation to > check and document semantics of that flag.) I agree on both counts. Paolo