[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 3/5] iohandlers: Allow each iohandler to be enab
From: |
Amit Shah |
Subject: |
[Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 3/5] iohandlers: Allow each iohandler to be enabled/disabled individually |
Date: |
Thu, 13 Jan 2011 19:48:31 +0530 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On (Thu) Jan 13 2011 [15:08:51], Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> On 01/13/11 15:00, Amit Shah wrote:
> >On (Thu) Jan 13 2011 [14:55:25], Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> >>On 01/13/11 14:00, Amit Shah wrote:
> >>> {
> >>>- return assign_fd_handlers(fd, fd_read_poll, fd_read, fd_write,
> >>>opaque);
> >>>+ assign_fd_handlers(fd, fd_read_poll, fd_read, fd_write, opaque);
> >>>+ set_read_poll_fd_action(fd, true);
> >>>+ set_read_fd_action(fd, true);
> >>>+ set_write_fd_action(fd, true);
> >>>+ return 0;
> >>> }
> >>
> >>I'd suggest to move the *action calls into assign_fd_handlers() so
> >>the handlers default to being enabled in all cases. This should
> >>match what most users need and thus minimize the number of *_action
> >>calls needed.
> >
> >What may happen with that is the fd may get select()-ed for an operation
> >that it didn't want to be put on the queue for.
>
> I can't see such a race window given that most qemu code runs
> serialized anyway. If you call assign_fd_handlers() +
> set_write_fd_action(false) in sequence I can't see how a select call
> can happen inbetween ...
Not today, but later when we have threads doing this stuff? Should I
just leave a comment to take care of this for later?
Amit
[Qemu-devel] [PATCH 4/5] iohandlers: Enable an iohandler only if the associated handler exists, Amit Shah, 2011/01/13
[Qemu-devel] [PATCH 5/5] iohandlers: Add IOHandlerOps struct, Amit Shah, 2011/01/13
[Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 0/5] iohandlers: Add support for enabling/disabling individual handlers, Gerd Hoffmann, 2011/01/13