From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:42213) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UIkPP-0004FW-IU for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:40:17 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UIkPN-0006Ip-JS for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:40:15 -0400 Sender: fluxion Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 13:35:31 -0500 From: mdroth Message-ID: <20130321183531.GH1580@vm> References: <20130320160308.GB1580@vm> <20130320125851.2e501c00@doriath> <20130320172630.GC1580@vm> <20130320134056.464e09b6@doriath> <20130320181421.GD1580@vm> <20130320143835.4a28e14d@doriath> <20130320193955.GE1580@vm> <871ub95j68.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> <20130321161313.GG1580@vm> <20130321142456.342813d2@doriath> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130321142456.342813d2@doriath> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] qemu-ga: use key-value store to avoid recycling fd handles after restart List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Luiz Capitulino Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, aliguori@us.ibm.com, Markus Armbruster , qemu-stable@nongnu.org On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 02:24:56PM -0400, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 11:13:13 -0500 > mdroth wrote: > > > > Looks like you guys have no *practical* problems to solve. Congrats! > > > Take a vacation! Please report back no later than 275 years from now, > > > to make sure this 64 bit fd counter overflow problem gets taken care of > > > in time. ;-P > > > > > > > Haha, well, I didn't want to be that one lazy developer who brings about > > the downfall of future human civilization... but if it's a really big > > deal they'll probably send someone back from the future to let me know, > > so maybe I'm jumping the gun a bit :) > > I *am* that guy, but I was afraid to tell :) > > > I just didn't want to introduce a new interface that relied on > > interfaces that were planned for deprecation in the *long*-term, but i > > think you're right, it's too much hassle for current users for too > > little gain, and there's plenty of time to do it in the future so I'll > > hold off on it for now. > > Let me clarify it: when I read the code I didn't realize fd_counter > would never wrap. I think this discussion is settled now. However, I > still think that having an assert there is good practice. > > I can post a patch myself. > Sounds good :)