From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:51071)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <andreas.faerber@web.de>) id 1SeMPK-0007dn-Ci
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 04:25:04 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <andreas.faerber@web.de>) id 1SeMPD-0001dJ-Vf
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 04:24:57 -0400
Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.17.12]:63458)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <andreas.faerber@web.de>) id 1SeMPD-0001cz-MX
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 04:24:51 -0400
Message-ID: <4FD6FCCE.8080807@web.de>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 10:24:46 +0200
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andreas_F=E4rber?= <andreas.faerber@web.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1205291426350.26786@kaball-desktop>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1205291426350.26786@kaball-desktop>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu_rearm_alarm_timer: do not call rearm if the
 next deadline is INT64_MAX
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: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>, Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, Stefan Weil <sw@weilnetz.de>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@gmail.com>

Am 29.05.2012 15:35, schrieb Stefano Stabellini:
> qemu_rearm_alarm_timer partially duplicates the code in
> qemu_next_alarm_deadline to figure out if it needs to rearm the timer.
> If it calls qemu_next_alarm_deadline, it always rearms the timer even if
> the next deadline is INT64_MAX.
> 
> This patch simplifies the behavior of qemu_rearm_alarm_timer and removes
> the duplicated code, always calling qemu_next_alarm_deadline and only
> rearming the timer if the deadline is less than INT64_MAX.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>

Tested-by: Andreas Färber <andreas.faerber@web.de>

This resolves the assertion I had previously reported.

The check-qtest-i386 qemu-system-i386 process now hangs at ~98% CPU,
just as with my INT64_MAX hack before. How would I best debug this qtest
scenario, and what should I be looking for? Since my 1.1 patch this is
no longer going through any Cocoa event handling, so the only causes I
can think of are timers and signals...

Andreas