From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Samuel Thibault Subject: Re: [minios] Add xenbus shutdown control support Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 10:40:12 +0100 Message-ID: <20121204094012.GF5906@type.bordeaux.inria.fr> References: <20121128215723.GA6109@type> <1354187659.25834.147.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <20121204003026.GP6055@type.youpi.perso.aquilenet.fr> <1354613565.2693.54.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1354613565.2693.54.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian Campbell , dgdegra@tycho.nsa.gov, matthew.fioravante@jhuapl.edu Cc: "Keir (Xen.org)" , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Ian Campbell, le Tue 04 Dec 2012 09:32:45 +0000, a =E9crit : > On Tue, 2012-12-04 at 00:30 +0000, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > Ian Campbell, le Thu 29 Nov 2012 11:14:19 +0000, a =E9crit : > > > On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 21:57 +0000, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > > > Add a thread watching the xenbus shutdown control path and notifies= a > > > > wait queue. > > > = > > > Why a wait queue rather than a weak function call? > > = > > Because it integrates well with existing wait loops. > = > I was imagining that someone using such a wait loop would simply provide > the weak function to kick the queue themselves, Ah, right, in that case it doesn't need much synchronization with the shutdown event, so it doesn't pose problem. > rather than imposing this design on them from the core. It's not a big > deal though. But it's nicer to get it the way people would prefer. Daniel, Matthew, what do you think? Samuel