From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DGjue-0001D0-Hz for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 30 Mar 2005 15:35:42 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DGjuZ-00019t-75 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 30 Mar 2005 15:35:38 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DGjuX-00017S-EP for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 30 Mar 2005 15:35:33 -0500 Received: from [216.58.162.138] (helo=netraverse.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (SSLv3:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.34) id 1DGjcj-00050K-CQ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 30 Mar 2005 15:17:09 -0500 Received: from [69.165.224.96] (account lreiter HELO [10.1.0.1]) by netraverse.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0.5) with ESMTP-TLS id 5439946 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:34:14 -0700 Message-ID: <424B093A.80202@win4lin.com> Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 15:16:58 -0500 From: "Leonardo E. Reiter" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: Suggestion - trap window-close of VM References: <4247EBB0.6090409@praguespringpeople.org> <200503292352.20141.paul@codesourcery.com> <424A9994.1070508@praguespringpeople.org> <20050330124816.GA10714@xi.wantstofly.org> <424AA90A.1060103@praguespringpeople.org> <20050330182255.GA11868@xi.wantstofly.org> In-Reply-To: <20050330182255.GA11868@xi.wantstofly.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org If I understand this correctly, it's specifically doing a halt with interrupts disabled. In theory that should just halt the processor indefinitely, since interrupts cannot be received. I can't imagine this being a common scenario for any software other than when it is completely shut down, unless of course you are explicitly expecting a non-maskable interrupt, which cannot be disabled, during a halt instruction. Again, I don't think it's all that common. - Leo Reiter Lennert Buytenhek wrote: > > So now you're implying that disabling interrupts is something that > only very rarely happens, for example when shutting down the machine? > I don't think that is a very realistic assumption. > > > --L -- Leonardo E. Reiter Vice President of Engineering Win4Lin, Inc. Virtual Computing from Desktop to Data Center Main: +1 512 339 7979 Fax: +1 512 532 6501 http://www.win4lin.com