* [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] Delete IOHandlers after potentially running them
2010-11-03 14:29 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Delete IOHandlers after potentially running them Stefan Hajnoczi
@ 2010-11-03 14:39 ` Juan Quintela
2010-11-03 14:40 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2010-11-03 14:57 ` [Qemu-devel] " Anthony Liguori
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Juan Quintela @ 2010-11-03 14:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefan Hajnoczi; +Cc: qemu-devel
Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> Since commit 4bed9837309e58d208183f81d8344996744292cf an .fd_read()
> handler that deletes its IOHandler is exposed to .fd_write() being
> called on the deleted IOHandler.
>
> This patch fixes deletion so that .fd_read() and .fd_write() are never
> called on an IOHandler that is marked for deletion.
Reviewed by: Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com>
But once here, what (appart from networking) reads and writes to the
same fd? And that removes the IOHandler on read while there are write
stuff pending?
Later, Juan.
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> vl.c | 15 ++++++++-------
> 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/vl.c b/vl.c
> index 7038952..6f56123 100644
> --- a/vl.c
> +++ b/vl.c
> @@ -1252,17 +1252,18 @@ void main_loop_wait(int nonblocking)
> IOHandlerRecord *pioh;
>
> QLIST_FOREACH_SAFE(ioh, &io_handlers, next, pioh) {
> - if (ioh->deleted) {
> - QLIST_REMOVE(ioh, next);
> - qemu_free(ioh);
> - continue;
> - }
> - if (ioh->fd_read && FD_ISSET(ioh->fd, &rfds)) {
> + if (!ioh->deleted && ioh->fd_read && FD_ISSET(ioh->fd, &rfds)) {
> ioh->fd_read(ioh->opaque);
> }
> - if (ioh->fd_write && FD_ISSET(ioh->fd, &wfds)) {
> + if (!ioh->deleted && ioh->fd_write && FD_ISSET(ioh->fd, &wfds)) {
> ioh->fd_write(ioh->opaque);
> }
> +
> + /* Do this last in case read/write handlers marked it for deletion */
> + if (ioh->deleted) {
> + QLIST_REMOVE(ioh, next);
> + qemu_free(ioh);
> + }
> }
> }
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] Delete IOHandlers after potentially running them
2010-11-03 14:39 ` [Qemu-devel] " Juan Quintela
@ 2010-11-03 14:40 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Stefan Hajnoczi @ 2010-11-03 14:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Juan Quintela; +Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi, qemu-devel
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com> wrote:
> Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> Since commit 4bed9837309e58d208183f81d8344996744292cf an .fd_read()
>> handler that deletes its IOHandler is exposed to .fd_write() being
>> called on the deleted IOHandler.
>>
>> This patch fixes deletion so that .fd_read() and .fd_write() are never
>> called on an IOHandler that is marked for deletion.
>
> Reviewed by: Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com>
>
> But once here, what (appart from networking) reads and writes to the
> same fd? And that removes the IOHandler on read while there are write
> stuff pending?
VNC
Stefan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Delete IOHandlers after potentially running them
2010-11-03 14:29 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Delete IOHandlers after potentially running them Stefan Hajnoczi
2010-11-03 14:39 ` [Qemu-devel] " Juan Quintela
@ 2010-11-03 14:57 ` Anthony Liguori
2010-11-03 15:12 ` [Qemu-devel] " Juan Quintela
2010-11-03 15:00 ` [Qemu-devel] " Anthony Liguori
2010-11-16 22:24 ` Anthony Liguori
3 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Anthony Liguori @ 2010-11-03 14:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefan Hajnoczi; +Cc: qemu-devel, Juan Quintela
On 11/03/2010 09:29 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> Since commit 4bed9837309e58d208183f81d8344996744292cf an .fd_read()
> handler that deletes its IOHandler is exposed to .fd_write() being
> called on the deleted IOHandler.
>
> This patch fixes deletion so that .fd_read() and .fd_write() are never
> called on an IOHandler that is marked for deletion.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Hajnoczi<stefanha@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> vl.c | 15 ++++++++-------
> 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/vl.c b/vl.c
> index 7038952..6f56123 100644
> --- a/vl.c
> +++ b/vl.c
> @@ -1252,17 +1252,18 @@ void main_loop_wait(int nonblocking)
> IOHandlerRecord *pioh;
>
> QLIST_FOREACH_SAFE(ioh,&io_handlers, next, pioh) {
> - if (ioh->deleted) {
> - QLIST_REMOVE(ioh, next);
> - qemu_free(ioh);
> - continue;
> - }
> - if (ioh->fd_read&& FD_ISSET(ioh->fd,&rfds)) {
> + if (!ioh->deleted&& ioh->fd_read&& FD_ISSET(ioh->fd,&rfds)) {
> ioh->fd_read(ioh->opaque);
> }
> - if (ioh->fd_write&& FD_ISSET(ioh->fd,&wfds)) {
> + if (!ioh->deleted&& ioh->fd_write&& FD_ISSET(ioh->fd,&wfds)) {
> ioh->fd_write(ioh->opaque);
> }
> +
> + /* Do this last in case read/write handlers marked it for deletion */
> + if (ioh->deleted) {
> + QLIST_REMOVE(ioh, next);
> + qemu_free(ioh);
> + }
> }
>
This isn't enough. If you end up with a handler deleting the next
pointer and the current pointer, you'll end up running off the end of
the list.
The original commit should be reverted.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
> }
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] Delete IOHandlers after potentially running them
2010-11-03 14:57 ` [Qemu-devel] " Anthony Liguori
@ 2010-11-03 15:12 ` Juan Quintela
2010-11-03 17:43 ` Anthony Liguori
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Juan Quintela @ 2010-11-03 15:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Anthony Liguori; +Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi, qemu-devel
Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws> wrote:
> On 11/03/2010 09:29 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>> Since commit 4bed9837309e58d208183f81d8344996744292cf an .fd_read()
>> handler that deletes its IOHandler is exposed to .fd_write() being
>> called on the deleted IOHandler.
>>
>> This patch fixes deletion so that .fd_read() and .fd_write() are never
>> called on an IOHandler that is marked for deletion.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Hajnoczi<stefanha@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> ---
>> vl.c | 15 ++++++++-------
>> 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/vl.c b/vl.c
>> index 7038952..6f56123 100644
>> --- a/vl.c
>> +++ b/vl.c
>> @@ -1252,17 +1252,18 @@ void main_loop_wait(int nonblocking)
>> IOHandlerRecord *pioh;
>>
>> QLIST_FOREACH_SAFE(ioh,&io_handlers, next, pioh) {
>> - if (ioh->deleted) {
>> - QLIST_REMOVE(ioh, next);
>> - qemu_free(ioh);
>> - continue;
>> - }
>> - if (ioh->fd_read&& FD_ISSET(ioh->fd,&rfds)) {
>> + if (!ioh->deleted&& ioh->fd_read&& FD_ISSET(ioh->fd,&rfds)) {
>> ioh->fd_read(ioh->opaque);
>> }
>> - if (ioh->fd_write&& FD_ISSET(ioh->fd,&wfds)) {
>> + if (!ioh->deleted&& ioh->fd_write&& FD_ISSET(ioh->fd,&wfds)) {
>> ioh->fd_write(ioh->opaque);
>> }
>> +
>> + /* Do this last in case read/write handlers marked it for deletion */
>> + if (ioh->deleted) {
>> + QLIST_REMOVE(ioh, next);
>> + qemu_free(ioh);
>> + }
>> }
>>
>
> This isn't enough. If you end up with a handler deleting the next
> pointer and the current pointer, you'll end up running off the end of
> the list.
What is the point of that?
That a handler can remove itself is ok.
But that a handler can remove also the next in a list that is used for
other things looks pretty insane to me.
> The original commit should be reverted.
If that behaviour is expected, then I agree that we should revert it.
But I would consider that behaviour wrong.
Later, Juan.
> Regards,
>
> Anthony Liguori
>
>> }
>>
>>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] Delete IOHandlers after potentially running them
2010-11-03 15:12 ` [Qemu-devel] " Juan Quintela
@ 2010-11-03 17:43 ` Anthony Liguori
2010-11-03 18:39 ` Juan Quintela
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Anthony Liguori @ 2010-11-03 17:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Juan Quintela; +Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi, qemu-devel
On 11/03/2010 10:12 AM, Juan Quintela wrote:
> Anthony Liguori<anthony@codemonkey.ws> wrote:
>
>> On 11/03/2010 09:29 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>>
>>> Since commit 4bed9837309e58d208183f81d8344996744292cf an .fd_read()
>>> handler that deletes its IOHandler is exposed to .fd_write() being
>>> called on the deleted IOHandler.
>>>
>>> This patch fixes deletion so that .fd_read() and .fd_write() are never
>>> called on an IOHandler that is marked for deletion.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Hajnoczi<stefanha@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>> ---
>>> vl.c | 15 ++++++++-------
>>> 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/vl.c b/vl.c
>>> index 7038952..6f56123 100644
>>> --- a/vl.c
>>> +++ b/vl.c
>>> @@ -1252,17 +1252,18 @@ void main_loop_wait(int nonblocking)
>>> IOHandlerRecord *pioh;
>>>
>>> QLIST_FOREACH_SAFE(ioh,&io_handlers, next, pioh) {
>>> - if (ioh->deleted) {
>>> - QLIST_REMOVE(ioh, next);
>>> - qemu_free(ioh);
>>> - continue;
>>> - }
>>> - if (ioh->fd_read&& FD_ISSET(ioh->fd,&rfds)) {
>>> + if (!ioh->deleted&& ioh->fd_read&& FD_ISSET(ioh->fd,&rfds)) {
>>> ioh->fd_read(ioh->opaque);
>>> }
>>> - if (ioh->fd_write&& FD_ISSET(ioh->fd,&wfds)) {
>>> + if (!ioh->deleted&& ioh->fd_write&& FD_ISSET(ioh->fd,&wfds)) {
>>> ioh->fd_write(ioh->opaque);
>>> }
>>> +
>>> + /* Do this last in case read/write handlers marked it for deletion */
>>> + if (ioh->deleted) {
>>> + QLIST_REMOVE(ioh, next);
>>> + qemu_free(ioh);
>>> + }
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>> This isn't enough. If you end up with a handler deleting the next
>> pointer and the current pointer, you'll end up running off the end of
>> the list.
>>
> What is the point of that?
>
> That a handler can remove itself is ok.
> But that a handler can remove also the next in a list that is used for
> other things looks pretty insane to me.
>
If you have multiple file descriptors registered for something and you
get an EOF on one of the file descriptors, your clean-up action that
happens as a result of closing the session may involve deleting more
than one file descriptor callback.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
>> The original commit should be reverted.
>>
> If that behaviour is expected, then I agree that we should revert it.
> But I would consider that behaviour wrong.
>
> Later, Juan.
>
>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Anthony Liguori
>>
>>
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] Delete IOHandlers after potentially running them
2010-11-03 17:43 ` Anthony Liguori
@ 2010-11-03 18:39 ` Juan Quintela
2010-11-09 11:32 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Juan Quintela @ 2010-11-03 18:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Anthony Liguori; +Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi, qemu-devel
Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws> wrote:
> On 11/03/2010 10:12 AM, Juan Quintela wrote:
>> Anthony Liguori<anthony@codemonkey.ws> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/03/2010 09:29 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>>>
>>>> Since commit 4bed9837309e58d208183f81d8344996744292cf an .fd_read()
>>>> handler that deletes its IOHandler is exposed to .fd_write() being
>>>> called on the deleted IOHandler.
>>>>
>>>> This patch fixes deletion so that .fd_read() and .fd_write() are never
>>>> called on an IOHandler that is marked for deletion.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Hajnoczi<stefanha@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> vl.c | 15 ++++++++-------
>>>> 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/vl.c b/vl.c
>>>> index 7038952..6f56123 100644
>>>> --- a/vl.c
>>>> +++ b/vl.c
>>>> @@ -1252,17 +1252,18 @@ void main_loop_wait(int nonblocking)
>>>> IOHandlerRecord *pioh;
>>>>
>>>> QLIST_FOREACH_SAFE(ioh,&io_handlers, next, pioh) {
>>>> - if (ioh->deleted) {
>>>> - QLIST_REMOVE(ioh, next);
>>>> - qemu_free(ioh);
>>>> - continue;
>>>> - }
>>>> - if (ioh->fd_read&& FD_ISSET(ioh->fd,&rfds)) {
>>>> + if (!ioh->deleted&& ioh->fd_read&& FD_ISSET(ioh->fd,&rfds)) {
>>>> ioh->fd_read(ioh->opaque);
>>>> }
>>>> - if (ioh->fd_write&& FD_ISSET(ioh->fd,&wfds)) {
>>>> + if (!ioh->deleted&& ioh->fd_write&& FD_ISSET(ioh->fd,&wfds)) {
>>>> ioh->fd_write(ioh->opaque);
>>>> }
>>>> +
>>>> + /* Do this last in case read/write handlers marked it for deletion */
>>>> + if (ioh->deleted) {
>>>> + QLIST_REMOVE(ioh, next);
>>>> + qemu_free(ioh);
>>>> + }
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>
>>> This isn't enough. If you end up with a handler deleting the next
>>> pointer and the current pointer, you'll end up running off the end of
>>> the list.
>>>
>> What is the point of that?
>>
>> That a handler can remove itself is ok.
>> But that a handler can remove also the next in a list that is used for
>> other things looks pretty insane to me.
>>
>
> If you have multiple file descriptors registered for something and you
> get an EOF on one of the file descriptors, your clean-up action that
> happens as a result of closing the session may involve deleting more
> than one file descriptor callback.
But that is completely wrong. you just put an ioh->deleted=1 for the
others, and you are right, no?
Later, Juan.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] Delete IOHandlers after potentially running them
2010-11-03 18:39 ` Juan Quintela
@ 2010-11-09 11:32 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Stefan Hajnoczi @ 2010-11-09 11:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Anthony Liguori; +Cc: Juan Quintela, Stefan Hajnoczi, qemu-devel
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 6:39 PM, Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com> wrote:
> Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws> wrote:
>> On 11/03/2010 10:12 AM, Juan Quintela wrote:
>>> Anthony Liguori<anthony@codemonkey.ws> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/03/2010 09:29 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Since commit 4bed9837309e58d208183f81d8344996744292cf an .fd_read()
>>>>> handler that deletes its IOHandler is exposed to .fd_write() being
>>>>> called on the deleted IOHandler.
>>>>>
>>>>> This patch fixes deletion so that .fd_read() and .fd_write() are never
>>>>> called on an IOHandler that is marked for deletion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Hajnoczi<stefanha@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> vl.c | 15 ++++++++-------
>>>>> 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/vl.c b/vl.c
>>>>> index 7038952..6f56123 100644
>>>>> --- a/vl.c
>>>>> +++ b/vl.c
>>>>> @@ -1252,17 +1252,18 @@ void main_loop_wait(int nonblocking)
>>>>> IOHandlerRecord *pioh;
>>>>>
>>>>> QLIST_FOREACH_SAFE(ioh,&io_handlers, next, pioh) {
>>>>> - if (ioh->deleted) {
>>>>> - QLIST_REMOVE(ioh, next);
>>>>> - qemu_free(ioh);
>>>>> - continue;
>>>>> - }
>>>>> - if (ioh->fd_read&& FD_ISSET(ioh->fd,&rfds)) {
>>>>> + if (!ioh->deleted&& ioh->fd_read&& FD_ISSET(ioh->fd,&rfds)) {
>>>>> ioh->fd_read(ioh->opaque);
>>>>> }
>>>>> - if (ioh->fd_write&& FD_ISSET(ioh->fd,&wfds)) {
>>>>> + if (!ioh->deleted&& ioh->fd_write&& FD_ISSET(ioh->fd,&wfds)) {
>>>>> ioh->fd_write(ioh->opaque);
>>>>> }
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /* Do this last in case read/write handlers marked it for deletion */
>>>>> + if (ioh->deleted) {
>>>>> + QLIST_REMOVE(ioh, next);
>>>>> + qemu_free(ioh);
>>>>> + }
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> This isn't enough. If you end up with a handler deleting the next
>>>> pointer and the current pointer, you'll end up running off the end of
>>>> the list.
>>>>
>>> What is the point of that?
>>>
>>> That a handler can remove itself is ok.
>>> But that a handler can remove also the next in a list that is used for
>>> other things looks pretty insane to me.
>>>
>>
>> If you have multiple file descriptors registered for something and you
>> get an EOF on one of the file descriptors, your clean-up action that
>> happens as a result of closing the session may involve deleting more
>> than one file descriptor callback.
>
> But that is completely wrong. you just put an ioh->deleted=1 for the
> others, and you are right, no?
Yes, other IOHandlerRecords will not be removed from the list yet,
they will only be marked as ioh->deleted=1.
Anthony, are you happy to merge this patch?
Stefan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Delete IOHandlers after potentially running them
2010-11-03 14:29 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Delete IOHandlers after potentially running them Stefan Hajnoczi
2010-11-03 14:39 ` [Qemu-devel] " Juan Quintela
2010-11-03 14:57 ` [Qemu-devel] " Anthony Liguori
@ 2010-11-03 15:00 ` Anthony Liguori
2010-11-16 22:24 ` Anthony Liguori
3 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Anthony Liguori @ 2010-11-03 15:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefan Hajnoczi; +Cc: qemu-devel, Juan Quintela
On 11/03/2010 09:29 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> Since commit 4bed9837309e58d208183f81d8344996744292cf an .fd_read()
> handler that deletes its IOHandler is exposed to .fd_write() being
> called on the deleted IOHandler.
>
> This patch fixes deletion so that .fd_read() and .fd_write() are never
> called on an IOHandler that is marked for deletion.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Hajnoczi<stefanha@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> vl.c | 15 ++++++++-------
> 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/vl.c b/vl.c
> index 7038952..6f56123 100644
> --- a/vl.c
> +++ b/vl.c
> @@ -1252,17 +1252,18 @@ void main_loop_wait(int nonblocking)
> IOHandlerRecord *pioh;
>
> QLIST_FOREACH_SAFE(ioh,&io_handlers, next, pioh) {
> - if (ioh->deleted) {
> - QLIST_REMOVE(ioh, next);
> - qemu_free(ioh);
> - continue;
> - }
> - if (ioh->fd_read&& FD_ISSET(ioh->fd,&rfds)) {
> + if (!ioh->deleted&& ioh->fd_read&& FD_ISSET(ioh->fd,&rfds)) {
> ioh->fd_read(ioh->opaque);
> }
> - if (ioh->fd_write&& FD_ISSET(ioh->fd,&wfds)) {
> + if (!ioh->deleted&& ioh->fd_write&& FD_ISSET(ioh->fd,&wfds)) {
> ioh->fd_write(ioh->opaque);
> }
> +
> + /* Do this last in case read/write handlers marked it for deletion */
> + if (ioh->deleted) {
> + QLIST_REMOVE(ioh, next);
> + qemu_free(ioh);
> + }
>
Actually, on second thought, I think this is correct although I still
think reverting is a better strategy.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
> }
> }
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Delete IOHandlers after potentially running them
2010-11-03 14:29 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Delete IOHandlers after potentially running them Stefan Hajnoczi
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2010-11-03 15:00 ` [Qemu-devel] " Anthony Liguori
@ 2010-11-16 22:24 ` Anthony Liguori
3 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Anthony Liguori @ 2010-11-16 22:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefan Hajnoczi; +Cc: qemu-devel, Juan Quintela
On 11/03/2010 09:29 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> Since commit 4bed9837309e58d208183f81d8344996744292cf an .fd_read()
> handler that deletes its IOHandler is exposed to .fd_write() being
> called on the deleted IOHandler.
>
> This patch fixes deletion so that .fd_read() and .fd_write() are never
> called on an IOHandler that is marked for deletion.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Hajnoczi<stefanha@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>
Applied. Thanks.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
> ---
> vl.c | 15 ++++++++-------
> 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/vl.c b/vl.c
> index 7038952..6f56123 100644
> --- a/vl.c
> +++ b/vl.c
> @@ -1252,17 +1252,18 @@ void main_loop_wait(int nonblocking)
> IOHandlerRecord *pioh;
>
> QLIST_FOREACH_SAFE(ioh,&io_handlers, next, pioh) {
> - if (ioh->deleted) {
> - QLIST_REMOVE(ioh, next);
> - qemu_free(ioh);
> - continue;
> - }
> - if (ioh->fd_read&& FD_ISSET(ioh->fd,&rfds)) {
> + if (!ioh->deleted&& ioh->fd_read&& FD_ISSET(ioh->fd,&rfds)) {
> ioh->fd_read(ioh->opaque);
> }
> - if (ioh->fd_write&& FD_ISSET(ioh->fd,&wfds)) {
> + if (!ioh->deleted&& ioh->fd_write&& FD_ISSET(ioh->fd,&wfds)) {
> ioh->fd_write(ioh->opaque);
> }
> +
> + /* Do this last in case read/write handlers marked it for deletion */
> + if (ioh->deleted) {
> + QLIST_REMOVE(ioh, next);
> + qemu_free(ioh);
> + }
> }
> }
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread