From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=47213 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1P6Qco-0001fm-B6
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 12:25:51 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1P6QTr-0005m4-To
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 12:16:36 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:63560)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1P6QTr-0005lt-Mp
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 12:16:35 -0400
Message-ID: <4CB72CDC.1010206@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 18:16:28 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/3] Introduce threadlets
References: <20101013152921.21735.87339.stgit@localhost6.localdomain6>	<20101013153110.21735.16669.stgit@localhost6.localdomain6>
	<AANLkTinwz5Pk+BdLCoPY7mUtUHGgSeyR=vX4WySBOrPi@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinwz5Pk+BdLCoPY7mUtUHGgSeyR=vX4WySBOrPi@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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.nongnu.org/archive/html/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: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@gmail.com>
Cc: Arun R Bharadwaj <arun@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

  On 10/14/2010 11:15 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> I forgot to add that the semantics of cancellation make it difficult
> to write correct user code.  Every cancellation user needs to add
> extra synchronization after the cancel call to handle the case where
> the work is currently executing.
>
> This seems tricky to me and I suspect code using this interface will
> be buggy.  How about the following?
> 1. Add a return value indicating that the work is currently executing
> (this still requires the caller to add extra synchronization but is at
> least explicit) versus work is no longer on the list.
> 2. Add a flag to block until the work has been cancelled or completed.
>   This is useful to callers who are allowed to block.

Blocking is somewhat against the spirit of the thing, no?  While I agree 
that the current cancel API is hard to use correctly, blocking defeats 
the purpose of the API.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function