From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:55218) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QbzP8-0001bx-8I for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 14:22:27 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QbzP6-0004GL-Do for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 14:22:25 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:54858) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QbzP5-0004Fx-S3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 14:22:24 -0400 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p5TIMMiH003470 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 14:22:22 -0400 Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 20:22:16 +0200 From: Alon Levy Message-ID: <20110629182216.GA26431@bow.redhat.com> References: <1309348641-20061-1-git-send-email-alevy@redhat.com> <1309348641-20061-13-git-send-email-alevy@redhat.com> <4E0B2359.7000702@redhat.com> <20110629142747.GZ30873@bow.redhat.com> <4E0B3BA2.3040905@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4E0B3BA2.3040905@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCHv3] qxl: add QXL_IO_FLUSH_{SURFACES, RELEASE} for guest S3&S4 support List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Gerd Hoffmann Cc: yhalperi@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 04:50:10PM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > >>>+ case QXL_IO_FLUSH_RELEASE: { > >>>+ QXLReleaseRing *ring =&d->ram->release_ring; > >>>+ if (ring->prod - ring->cons + 1 == ring->num_items) { > >>>+ // TODO - "return" a value to the guest and let it loop? > >> ^^^^ > >>Hmm. > >So the story goes: I wrote this, but didn't actually see this happen in practice, > >particularily since the driver empties the release ring. The simplest would be to > >replace it with some fprintf(stderr) > > How do you think this could happen? If there are no unprocessed > requests in the pipeline (shouldn't be, all surfaces are flushed to > device memory and destroyedv at that point) and the driver cares > empty the release ring before calling this it should not happen, > right? Yes. The point was to check anyway, it should never happen with our driver, but a check can catch an error I guess. > > cheers, > Gerd >