From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:36780)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1Tv6l5-00042a-VW
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 08:40:57 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1Tv6l4-0000gg-6P
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 08:40:55 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:16625)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1Tv6l3-0000gX-V8
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 08:40:54 -0500
Message-ID: <50F55C44.5010708@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:40:20 +0100
From: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <50F055D8.7040505@redhat.com> <50F5572F.1010208@redhat.com>
	<50F55981.1050100@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <50F55981.1050100@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: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>, qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, Brad <brad@comstyle.com>

Am 15.01.2013 14:28, schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
> 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.

Dataplane is (at least for now) not the most important thing to have
when debugging a block driver. Would it help if we made dataplane and
coroutine-gthread mutually exclusive?

Kevin