From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paolo Bonzini Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/10] MCE: Relay UCR MCE to guest Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 23:56:55 +0200 Message-ID: <4CBF65A7.3090903@redhat.com> References: <10ae5833ff9de153c311917d532f3e84e5b00387.1287596626.git.mtosatti@redhat.com> <4CBF485C.9060808@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Marcelo Tosatti , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Avi Kivity To: Anthony Liguori Return-path: Received: from mail-fx0-f46.google.com ([209.85.161.46]:64803 "EHLO mail-fx0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751884Ab0JTV5D (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Oct 2010 17:57:03 -0400 Received: by fxm4 with SMTP id 4so3151612fxm.19 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 14:57:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4CBF485C.9060808@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 10/20/2010 09:51 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > I don't understand why this loop is needed but we specifically wait for > a signal to get delivered that's either SIG_IPI or SIGBUS. We then check > whether a SIG_IPI or SIGBUS is pending and loop waiting for signals again. > > Shouldn't we be looping on just sigismember(SIGBUS)? You mean because SIG_IPI is a real-time signal and standard signals are delivered first? OTOH, real-time signals can be queued multiple times so it makes sense to loop on SIG_IPI as well. > BTW, we're no longer respecting timeout because we're not adjusting ts > after each iteration. The timeout of qemu_kvm_eat_signal is always zero. Paolo