From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LNu4b-0001Ts-9Y
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:09:41 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LNu4Y-0001SX-S1
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:09:40 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=35796 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LNu4Y-0001ST-IE
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:09:38 -0500
Received: from mail-qy0-f20.google.com ([209.85.221.20]:51956)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1LNu4X-000873-UF
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:09:38 -0500
Received: by qyk13 with SMTP id 13so2682117qyk.10
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 11:09:35 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4970DB5F.5040608@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:09:19 -0600
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [6343] Fix false positive for AIO on OpenBSD
References: <E1LNtCH-0000b3-5e@cvs.savannah.gnu.org>	<4970D2EE.8060206@codemonkey.ws>	<f43fc5580901161041v52bd5be6u74f00d8a3e1e1e8b@mail.gmail.com>	<4970D6EA.2020700@codemonkey.ws>
	<f43fc5580901161103i58ec9633ob3198d242dd141da@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <f43fc5580901161103i58ec9633ob3198d242dd141da@mail.gmail.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

Blue Swirl wrote:
> On 1/16/09, Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws> wrote:
>   
>>
>>  It's just used for assigning the signal value.  We could have a #ifdef
>> HAVE_SIGEVENT and define it if it doesn't exist--or just change the aioinit
>> structure to use an int instead of the struct sigevent structure.  It's
>> sigevent for glibc compatibility but that's not really important at this
>> stage.
>>     
>
> Ok. Should kill be used always or just when sigqueue is not available?
>   

Since we use it for process instead of thread signaling, I think it's 
safe to always use kill().  I'm not completely sure though, having it 
conditional on sigqueue would certainly be the conservative thing to do.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori