From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KWUsE-0003r9-05 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 07:32:10 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KWUsC-0003qd-EZ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 07:32:09 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=59681 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KWUsC-0003qZ-9c for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 07:32:08 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:44686) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KWUsB-0004AW-9d for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 07:32:07 -0400 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m7MBW6EA028772 for ; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 07:32:06 -0400 Received: from pobox.stuttgart.redhat.com (pobox.stuttgart.redhat.com [172.16.2.10]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m7MBW5Dn016530 for ; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 07:32:06 -0400 Received: from zweiblum.travel.kraxel.org (vpn-4-90.str.redhat.com [10.32.4.90]) by pobox.stuttgart.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m7MBW5es007203 for ; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 07:32:05 -0400 Message-ID: <48AEA3B4.5050300@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:32:04 +0200 From: Gerd Hoffmann MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [5055] Handle terminating signals (Gerd Hoffmann) References: <48AE9963.5040603@siemens.com> In-Reply-To: <48AE9963.5040603@siemens.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 Hi, >> } else { >> + if (shutdown_requested) >> + break; >> timeout = 10; > Could we define the policy that no patch is merged which introduces new > compiler warnings? Just double-checked. I don't get a warning for some strange reason. Was wondered how a warning bypassed my attention. You probably see "ret can be used uninitialized ...", right? > --- a/vl.c > +++ b/vl.c > @@ -7624,8 +7624,10 @@ static int main_loop(void) > timeout = 0; > } > } else { > - if (shutdown_requested) > + if (shutdown_requested) { > + ret = EXCP_INTERRUPT; > break; > + } Fix looks fine to me. cheers, Gerd -- http://kraxel.fedorapeople.org/xenner/