From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:57757) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tv6Pt-0005EI-ID for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 08:19:03 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tv6Po-0002FS-Rk for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 08:19:01 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:40716) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tv6Po-0002FK-K3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 08:18:56 -0500 Message-ID: <50F5572F.1010208@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:18:39 +0100 From: Kevin Wolf MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <50F055D8.7040505@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <50F055D8.7040505@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] getting rid of coroutine-gthread? List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Peter Maydell , qemu-devel , Brad Am 11.01.2013 19:11, schrieb Paolo Bonzini: > Brad and Peter, > > as far as I know OpenBSD and Linux/ARM were the main users of > coroutine-gthread. Do you think we could dump it and rely on > coroutine-sigaltstack only? The differences in signal handling of the > gthread implementation always worried me. > > What versions of OpenBSD would we have to drop support for? Is that > acceptable to you? Changing the defaults for these platforms may be a good idea, but I actually like the option of having coroutine-gthread because it's much friendlier to debug - gdb supports threads, but not coroutines. Is coroutine-gthread blocking anything or is it just that you're not entirely confident in its correctness? Kevin