From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Kd6QX-0005N9-Sa
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Sep 2008 12:50:53 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Kd6QV-0005Mx-GW
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Sep 2008 12:50:52 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=51785 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Kd6QV-0005Mu-BO
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Sep 2008 12:50:51 -0400
Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:60307)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <glommer@redhat.com>) id 1Kd6QV-0005Py-6I
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Sep 2008 12:50:51 -0400
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 13:49:55 -0300
From: Glauber Costa <glommer@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20080909164955.GD7490@poweredge.glommer>
References: <1220978258-30894-1-git-send-email-dmitry.baryshkov@siemens.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1220978258-30894-1-git-send-email-dmitry.baryshkov@siemens.com>
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 1/2] qemu-accel: unbreak non-default
	accelerators
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@siemens.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Glauber Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>

On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 08:37:37PM +0400, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> Make noaccel accelerator "registered" early so that
> kqemu has a change to be enabled (it's registered
> via __constructor__ feature, so called before main()).
fyi: we're probably changing that. There has been a lot of mail exchange
this days about the general acceptability of this feature, and the overall
feeling is that it's a negative construct. So if the problem you hit happens because
the constructor itself, it's probably worthy to drop it altogether, and invest time
in a new method for registering the accelerators.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@siemens.com>
> Cc: Glauber Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>
> ---
>  vl.c |    9 +++++----
>  1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/vl.c b/vl.c
> index 16c1e15..bf9d83c 100644
> --- a/vl.c
> +++ b/vl.c
> @@ -243,7 +243,6 @@ static CPUState *next_cpu;
>  static int event_pending = 1;
>  
>  QEMUAccel *current_accel;
> -QEMUCont *head = NULL;
>  char qemu_app_name[20] = "QEMU";
>  
>  void decorate_app_name(void)
> @@ -290,6 +289,11 @@ QEMUAccel noaccel = {
>      .break_loop = accel_nop,
>  };
>  
> +QEMUCont *head = &(QEMUCont){
> +	.acc = &noaccel,
> +	.active = 0,
> +};
don't we want to register it as active = 1, for the case we're not using kqemu at all?
> +
>  #define TFR(expr) do { if ((expr) != -1) break; } while (errno == EINTR)
>  
>  /***********************************************************/
> @@ -7766,9 +7770,6 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>      }
>  #endif
>  
> -    /* Basic handler for the noaccel case */
> -    register_qemu_accel(&noaccel);
> -
>      register_machines();
>      machine = first_machine;
>      cpu_model = NULL;
> -- 
> 1.5.6.5
>