Am 02.05.2013 13:20, schrieb Jan Kiszka: > 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? > > Just noticed that this cleanup didn't make it into upstream back then. > Not truly trivial, but also not really risky.
Since I happened to touch that CPU function just yesterday and Paolo and me seem to agree the call is superfluous, applying it to qom-cpu: https://github.com/afaerber/qemu-cpu/commits/qom-cpu Thanks, Andreas -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
