From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46641) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fQ02q-0003DU-Sw for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 04 Jun 2018 20:41:53 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fQ02n-0007ep-Q6 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 04 Jun 2018 20:41:52 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:54772) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fQ02n-0007eM-KS for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 04 Jun 2018 20:41:49 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0A0A3181487 for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 00:41:48 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 21:41:46 -0300 From: Eduardo Habkost Message-ID: <20180605004146.GD3184@localhost.localdomain> References: <20180604103244.GD19749@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180604103244.GD19749@redhat.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] cli: Don't run early event loop if no --preconfig was specified List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Daniel =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=2E_Berrang=E9?= Cc: Michal Privoznik , imammedo@redhat.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 11:32:44AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrang=E9 wrote: [...] > Avoiding the double-run of main_loop is good, however, I think we shoul= d > also not have put current_run_state in RUN_STATE_PRECONFIG in the first > place if --preconfig wasn't set. I've sent a patch to fix that problem > too, so if yours is also applied, it could be changed to just do: >=20 > if (current_run_state =3D=3D RNU_STATE_PRECONFIG) { > main_loop(); > } So, this patch is desirable even if we refactor the state machine as suggested in the other threads, right? I'm queueing it on machine-next right now. --=20 Eduardo