On 2013-05-02 13:55, Andreas Färber wrote: > 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
Perfect! Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SDP-DE Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
