On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 07:11:36PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Brad and Peter, > > as far as I know OpenBSD and Linux/ARM were the main users of > coroutine-gthread. Do you think we could dump it and rely on > coroutine-sigaltstack only? The differences in signal handling of the > gthread implementation always worried me. > > What versions of OpenBSD would we have to drop support for? Is that > acceptable to you?
I'm OK with this. For our ports tree I have QEMU using the sigaltstack backend with 1.2.2 at the moment with -current. Our official policy is to use the ports/packages wherever possible for third-party software. For our current release (5.2) we provide QEMU 1.1.0. For -current we have 1.2.2 at the moment and I plan on updating to 1.3.1/1.4.0 depending on when and if 1.3.1 is released or if 1.4.0 is released sooner I'll just skip to 1.4.0. 1.3.1 with the back ported patch for using sem_timedwait() will require 5.2. 1.4.0 if dropping support for the gthread backend will require -current or the next release 5.3 which we will be going into freeze for within a month and a bit and the release will be May 1st. This is acceptable to me. I'd prefer that QEMU wherever possible do things properly and put the pressure on OpenBSD to do things properly as well and have bugs fixed. I had proded the developer working on the sigaltstack fix to get his work in and it has been commited. http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvs&m=135443183201631&w=2 -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
