On 2012-08-21 09:01, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 20/08/2012 20:11, Jan Kiszka ha scritto: >> VCPUs are either resumed directly via vm_start, after the incoming >> migration is done, or when a continue command is issued. We don't need >> the explicit resume before entering main_loop. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@siemens.com> >> --- >> >> I was adding nesting support to pause/resume_all_vcpus, and that >> stumbled over the imbalance below. >> >> vl.c | 1 - >> 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/vl.c b/vl.c >> index ebee867..231d3ab 100644 >> --- a/vl.c >> +++ b/vl.c >> @@ -3757,7 +3757,6 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv, char **envp) >> >> os_setup_post(); >> >> - resume_all_vcpus(); >> main_loop(); >> bdrv_close_all(); >> pause_all_vcpus(); >> > > Makes sense. Do we need a "main loop and similar" tree, or can that > tree be just uq/master now that qemu-kvm.c is dying?
I'm not sure if this qualifies for uq/master. On the other hand, all the efforts to refactor locking and make QEMU more scalable would like be happy to have a home. Can be uq/master, but they will not only affect KVM in the end. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SDP-DE Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
