From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60032) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WzS60-0004VB-MG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 10:53:21 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WzS5w-0001Cd-2O for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 10:53:16 -0400 Received: from mail-pd0-x230.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c02::230]:41946) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WzS5v-0001CZ-RK for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 10:53:11 -0400 Received: by mail-pd0-f176.google.com with SMTP id ft15so340386pdb.21 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 07:53:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <53A990CA.9050106@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 22:52:58 +0800 From: Wenchao Xia MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1403206792-15387-1-git-send-email-lcapitulino@redhat.com> <20140620144422.423ea957@redhat.com> <53A49053.5080606@redhat.com> <53A49358.40703@redhat.com> <53A97832.7080507@gmail.com> <53A97B24.7060108@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL for-2.1 00/40] QMP queue List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell , Eric Blake Cc: Paolo Bonzini , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , QEMU Developers , Anthony Liguori , Luiz Capitulino 于 2014/6/24 21:24, Peter Maydell 写道: > On 24 June 2014 14:20, Eric Blake wrote: >> Rebase your cleanups on to of this PULL request: >> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2014-06/msg05424.html > > I just applied that, so "rebase on top of master"... > There is a test broken due to CompatGMutex in test_qmp_event.c, and using CompatGMutest instead of simple GStaticMutex is caused by patch: commit 86946a2d835614050b90bc8e5c82982fe45deff2: Author: Michael Tokarev glib-compat.h: add new thread API emulation on top of pre-2.31 API It seems cond->once.retval never get a chance to be allocated before g_mutex_lock(), a bug? > thanks > -- PMM >