From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=43075 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q09pS-0003bG-7T for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 05:49:15 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q09pQ-0007TF-03 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 05:49:12 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:6248) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q09pP-0007Sq-LF for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 05:49:11 -0400 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p2H9n9TE021462 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 05:49:10 -0400 Message-ID: <4D81D8FB.6080009@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 10:48:43 +0100 From: Jes Sorensen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 4/4] hw/qxl-render: drop cursor locks, replace with pipe References: <1300290769-31155-1-git-send-email-alevy@redhat.com> <1300290769-31155-5-git-send-email-alevy@redhat.com> <4D80E9E9.7000505@redhat.com> <20110317093206.GL7413@playa.tlv.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20110317093206.GL7413@playa.tlv.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: hdegoede@redhat.com, uril@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, gleb@redhat.com On 03/17/11 10:32, Alon Levy wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 05:48:41PM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote: >> > On 03/16/11 16:52, Alon Levy wrote: >>> > > +void qxl_server_request_cursor_set(PCIQXLDevice *qxl, QEMUCursor *c, int x, int y) >>> > > +{ >>> > > + QXLServerCursorSetRequest req; >>> > > + int r; >>> > > + >>> > > + req.req = QXL_SERVER_CURSOR_SET; >>> > > + req.data.c = c; >>> > > + req.data.x = x; >>> > > + req.data.y = y; >>> > > + r = write(qxl->ssd.pipe[1], &req, sizeof(req)); >>> > > + assert(r == sizeof(req)); >>> > > +} >> > >> > There's a number of asserts here, which I am not sure is a good thing. I >> > don't understand how far down the code this is, and if it is really >> > fatal if this write fails? > A failure there means we can't write to a pipe between the server thread > and the iothread (main thread). That is not supposed to happen - and if > it does it means some operation by the spice server will never complete. > > Same for the asserts below, writes are from spice server thread, reads > are in iothread. But shouldn't this make it try to reconnect? Even if the reconnect fails, it shouldn't kill the guest IMHO. Cheers, Jes