From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 431D3C77B7C for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2023 17:22:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1priqP-00030t-67; Wed, 26 Apr 2023 13:22:17 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1priqM-00030Z-1k for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 26 Apr 2023 13:22:14 -0400 Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de ([2001:67c:2178:6::1d]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1priqK-00080G-KC for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 26 Apr 2023 13:22:13 -0400 Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D6301FD6A; Wed, 26 Apr 2023 17:22:11 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1682529731; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=aoFlR35NSYvAu5UBazeaVIk+ydGlvOcw63YhY7BwAdA=; b=UszZkfmSL87yTJya6qsS+4VnqsbLQakUXMFKHCdnNO9OEL0c3VZYXakD11F19eM2bCE3UT p6qUs2kxq/Q6EI6m0eDSyG9L3RU/llA7Q10svzpqsJgK94LYvtcRkd+2N9Sova6aaY1+OT WvHqUW4XW9F/UHHY9AWJm//5kFsV+Ng= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1682529731; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=aoFlR35NSYvAu5UBazeaVIk+ydGlvOcw63YhY7BwAdA=; b=ruOktBZ2eQn/mWJw6vDQK/J8K7K7hfvQlDQQruQaY5GlBXZKZcUnzpfB69gVtGytH/7Gbg yhq7+bdXJIEmb4Dw== Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A8C0713421; Wed, 26 Apr 2023 17:22:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id GER4HMJdSWRKQwAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Wed, 26 Apr 2023 17:22:10 +0000 From: Fabiano Rosas To: Juan Quintela , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: Peter Xu , Leonardo Bras , Juan Quintela Subject: Re: [PATCH] multifd: Fix the number of channels ready In-Reply-To: <20230426162307.11060-1-quintela@redhat.com> References: <20230426162307.11060-1-quintela@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2023 14:22:08 -0300 Message-ID: <87354mmudb.fsf@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2001:67c:2178:6::1d; envelope-from=farosas@suse.de; helo=smtp-out2.suse.de X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Juan Quintela writes: > We don't wait in the sem when we are doing a sync_main. Make it wait > there. To make things clearer, we mark the channel ready at the > begining of the thread loop. So in other words we're estabilishing that "channel ready" means ready to send, regardless of having sent the sync packet. Is that it?