From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50464) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d5Yu2-0007x2-8B for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 May 2017 10:35:47 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d5Ytx-0003WJ-D1 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 May 2017 10:35:46 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-x22f.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c09::22f]:35606) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d5Ytx-0003Vy-40 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 May 2017 10:35:41 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id w64so115064969wma.0 for ; Tue, 02 May 2017 07:35:40 -0700 (PDT) References: <20170428122444.23361-1-berrange@redhat.com> <8737cq4drt.fsf@linaro.org> <20170502140923.GF22502@stefanha-x1.localdomain> From: Alex =?utf-8?Q?Benn=C3=A9e?= In-reply-to: <20170502140923.GF22502@stefanha-x1.localdomain> Date: Tue, 02 May 2017 15:36:15 +0100 Message-ID: <87efw7nx5s.fsf@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] (RFC) remove the GThread coroutine implementation List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Stefan Hajnoczi Cc: Richard Henderson , Kevin Wolf , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Stefan Hajnoczi Stefan Hajnoczi writes: > On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 07:20:54AM +0100, Alex Bennée wrote: >> >> Richard Henderson writes: >> >> > On 04/28/2017 02:24 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: >> >> At the 2016 summit it was suggested that we delete the GThread >> >> coroutine impl since it is not fully functional, and you can >> >> debug the ucontext impl with our GDB helper script. >> >> >> >> I don't recall the subject being raised again since the summit >> >> so here's a proposal to delete the GThread impl, as a way to >> >> trigger input from anyone who thinks we need to keep it...... >> > >> > The last time this was mentioned, the reason that we were keeping it >> > was to make clang's thread-sanitizer module happy. Whether we can >> > still find relevant bugs with that, I don't know. >> >> It's been a while since I last did a ThreadSanitizer run. The correct >> fix is teaching the sanitizer about set context so we can use our normal >> build - however this has been at the bottom of a pile for such a long >> time. > > Any objections to merging this patch? I shall not stand in its way ;-) Acked-by: Alex Bennée -- Alex Bennée