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 <[email protected]> >> --- >> >> 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? > > Paolo >
Just noticed that this cleanup didn't make it into upstream back then. Not truly trivial, but also not really risky. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SDP-DE Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
