From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39355) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UuLq3-0002pw-M8 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 03 Jul 2013 08:07:14 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UuLq0-0003tx-OV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 03 Jul 2013 08:07:11 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:47811) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UuLkN-0001w7-Dv for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 03 Jul 2013 08:01:19 -0400 Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 14:01:05 +0200 From: Stefan Hajnoczi Message-ID: <20130703120105.GA18754@stefanha-thinkpad> References: <1371114186-8854-1-git-send-email-qemulist@gmail.com> <1371114186-8854-4-git-send-email-qemulist@gmail.com> <20130618124133.GJ7649@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com> <20130701115057.GC5543@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com> <20130703074908.GA16585@stefanha-thinkpad.muc.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 3/6] net: make netclient re-entrant with refcnt List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: liu ping fan Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, mdroth On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 03:54:44PM +0800, liu ping fan wrote: > On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 11:41:19AM +0800, liu ping fan wrote: > >> On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 7:50 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > >> > On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 05:14:56PM +0800, liu ping fan wrote: > >> >> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > >> >> > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 05:03:03PM +0800, Liu Ping Fan wrote: > >> >> >> @@ -1109,6 +1146,7 @@ void net_cleanup(void) > >> >> >> qemu_del_net_client(nc); > >> >> >> } > >> >> >> } > >> >> >> + qemu_mutex_destroy(&net_clients_lock); > >> >> > > >> >> > Why is it okay to iterate over net_clients here without the lock? > >> >> > >> >> atexit(&net_cleanup); So no other racers exist. > >> > > >> > What about dataplane? The device may not be reset when net_cleanup runs. > >> > > >> Does the func registered by atexit run after all of the other threads terminate? > > > > I imagine that atexit(3) runs while detached threads are still alive, > > but I'm not sure about the exact rules. The pthread specification links > > I found online didn't state the rules. > > > Haha, finally, got some hint for this. pthread_exit(3) says: > After the last thread in a process terminates, the > process terminates as by calling exit(3) with an exit status of zero; > thus, process-shared > resources are released and functions registered using atexit(3) > are called. That's only true for non-detached threads. A program can exit while detached threads are running. Stefan