From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43788) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dwLyE-0004ns-8l for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 01:30:19 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dwLy9-00022h-C0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 01:30:18 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:47848) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dwLy9-00021l-68 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 01:30:13 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5BB385550 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 05:30:11 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 13:30:02 +0800 From: Fam Zheng Message-ID: <20170925053002.GA398@lemon.lan> References: <1506070572-7549-1-git-send-email-peterx@redhat.com> <1506070572-7549-4-git-send-email-peterx@redhat.com> <20170922130922.GF32000@lemon> <20170925052330.GC19505@pxdev.xzpeter.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170925052330.GC19505@pxdev.xzpeter.org> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/3] iothread: delay the context release to finalize List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Xu Cc: Paolo Bonzini , Stefan Hajnoczi , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Dr . David Alan Gilbert" On Mon, 09/25 13:23, Peter Xu wrote: > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 09:09:22PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote: > > On Fri, 09/22 16:56, Peter Xu wrote: > > > When gcontext is used with iothread, the context will be destroyed > > > during iothread_stop(). That's not good since sometimes we would like > > > to keep the resources until iothread is destroyed, but we may want to > > > stop the thread before that point. > > > > Would be nice if you can also mention the glib bug that "required" this in the > > commit message. > > I can add it, but I am not sure it's very closely related (and I'm > afraid that may confuse more people). Say, even without that bug, I > would still think it not a good idea to free the context in the loop, > especially considering that we have the finalize function there. Thanks, It's interesting to know if or not your future change will break without this patch, this is especially useful for backport. Fam