From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:60568)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>) id 1Tv6ZI-0008AX-0D
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 08:28:44 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>) id 1Tv6ZH-00053t-07
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 08:28:43 -0500
Received: from mail-oa0-f48.google.com ([209.85.219.48]:58875)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>) id 1Tv6ZG-00053l-Qi
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 08:28:42 -0500
Received: by mail-oa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id h2so89265oag.21
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 05:28:41 -0800 (PST)
Sender: Paolo Bonzini <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <50F55981.1050100@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:28:33 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <50F055D8.7040505@redhat.com> <50F5572F.1010208@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <50F5572F.1010208@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: <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: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>, qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, Brad <brad@comstyle.com>

Il 15/01/2013 14:18, Kevin Wolf ha scritto:
>> > 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?

I'm not entirely confident in its correctness, and I'd be afraid of
breaking things when converting dataplane to AIOContext.

Paolo