From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marcelo Tosatti Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 uq/master 00/22] Win32 iothread support Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 16:42:23 -0300 Message-ID: <20110302194223.GA23050@amt.cnet> References: <1298884224-19734-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <4D6B67E0.4040408@redhat.com> <4D6B7479.5010307@redhat.com> <4D6B8D92.8050807@siemens.com> <4D6B9154.6000601@redhat.com> <4D6BAB8C.4040508@redhat.com> <4D6CE82C.3030702@redhat.com> <20110302184309.GA21289@amt.cnet> <4D6E948E.4050207@siemens.com> <20110302193634.GB22743@amt.cnet> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Avi Kivity , Paolo Bonzini , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , "aurelien@aurel32.net" , "blauwirbel@gmail.com" To: Jan Kiszka Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:20792 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757291Ab1CBTpF (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Mar 2011 14:45:05 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110302193634.GB22743@amt.cnet> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 04:36:34PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 08:03:42PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote: > > On 2011-03-02 19:43, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 02:35:56PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > > >> On 02/28/2011 04:05 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > >>> On 02/28/2011 01:13 PM, Avi Kivity wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> If there's a git tree of this I'll be happy to do an autotest run. > > >>> > > >>> Sure, it's branch iothread-win32 of git://github.com/bonzini/qemu.git > > >> > > >> Fails on Fedora 9 i386 install, hangs right after "Performing post > > >> install configuration...". The guest is processing interrupts but > > >> the mouse won't move, and it doesn't make progress. > > >> > > >> Configured with --enable-io-thread. Perhaps the problem exists even > > >> before the patchset. > > > > > > Probably unrelated, looks similar to the regression seen with qemu-kvm. > > > > > > > Do these patches change some behavior or not? > > Yes, they change some behaviour. Autotest fails. Sorry, i misunderstood. I don't think these patches change any behaviour. Avi's failure case is similar to what i've seen earlier upon qemu->qemu-kvm merge. Conclusion is there is no new regression introduced by these patches. > > > Is it this same effect you saw with my qemu-kvm queue? > > Yes. >