From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1KWW91-0001Wn-QH
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 08:53:35 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1KWW8z-0001TH-RK
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 08:53:35 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=42194 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KWW8z-0001T3-MQ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 08:53:33 -0400
Received: from ag-out-0708.google.com ([72.14.246.245]:28406)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1KWW8z-0001Zy-CR
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 08:53:33 -0400
Received: by ag-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id 31so1351312agc.5
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 05:53:32 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <48AEB69D.40501@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 07:52:45 -0500
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [5055] Handle terminating signals (Gerd Hoffmann)
References: <E1KWGRv-0004PS-DQ@cvs.savannah.gnu.org>
	<48AE9963.5040603@siemens.com>
In-Reply-To: <48AE9963.5040603@siemens.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Could we define the policy that no patch is merged which introduces new
> compiler warnings? Fix below remove the one caused by the hunk above,
> but it still leaves some doubts for the semi-informed reader because the
> "if (shutdown_requested)" block under vm_running also checks for
> no_shutdown. Please confirm that leaving it out here was by intention.
>   

I do check for warnings.  The version of GCC I'm using (3.4.6 20060404 
(Red Hat 3.4.6-9)) does not complain about these things.  We probably 
should add -Wall to the build and take the time to fix up all of the 
warnings that occur.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

> Jan
>
> --------
>
> Always return EXCP_INTERRUPT when leaving main_loop due to
> shutdown_requested.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
> ---
>  vl.c |    4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Index: b/vl.c
> ===================================================================
> --- 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;
> +            }
>              timeout = 10;
>          }
>  #ifdef CONFIG_PROFILER
>
>
>