From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:39101)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1SXYNm-0008E7-IV
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 24 May 2012 09:47:20 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1SXYNg-0006lX-DE
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 24 May 2012 09:47:14 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:22513)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1SXYNg-0006ks-4z
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 24 May 2012 09:47:08 -0400
Message-ID: <4FBE3BC9.6070203@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 15:46:49 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <002901cd3980$b8d4e6d0$2a7eb470$@Dovgaluk@ispras.ru>
	<4FBE2E5E.6010107@suse.de>
In-Reply-To: <4FBE2E5E.6010107@suse.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] Prevent disk data loss when closing qemu
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/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: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andreas_F=E4rber?= <afaerber@suse.de>
Cc: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>, 'qemu-devel' <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, Pavel Dovgaluk <Pavel.Dovgaluk@ispras.ru>

Il 24/05/2012 14:49, Andreas F=E4rber ha scritto:
>> > -    exit(STATUS_CONTROL_C_EXIT);
>> > +    qemu_system_shutdown_request();
>> > +    /* Windows 7 kills application when the function returns.
>> > +       Sleep here to give QEMU a try for closing */
>> > +    Sleep(10000);
> How do we know that 10000 is enough? Shouldn't we rather block until
> receipt of some completion signal?

After 10s Windows will kill us anyway.  Think of it as SIGTERM/SIGKILL.

Using a completion signal would be more polite (the QEMU process would
disappear as soon as possible), but the outcome would be the same.

Paolo