On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 02:29:39AM +0100, Charlie Shepherd wrote: > On 07/08/2013 23:13, Gabriel Kerneis wrote: > >On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 09:18:05PM +0200, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > >>I guess the practical problem is that CPC will get > >>upset that it's being called by the coroutine implementation from > >>non-coroutine contexts. > >But is it really the case? If Charlie added an annotation, it probably means > >that in practice it was only called from coroutine context anyway. > > It was also called from coroutine implementation in functions that > weren't annotated coroutine_fn (qemu_coroutine_switch() and > friends).
In that case, the interface/implementation split suggested by Stefan makes sense. Note that qemu_coroutine_self() in principle really needs to be annotated coroutine_fn since it accesses (and returns) its execution context. The fact that it is implemented with thread-local variables in Qemu is an implementation detail, almost a hack (however smart); the "natural" CPC way would be to just return the coroutine associated with the current continuation. So keeping the annotation definitely makes sense. -- Gabriel
