* Paolo Bonzini (pbonz...@redhat.com) wrote:
> Il 07/10/2014 10:58, Dr. David Alan Gilbert ha scritto:
> >
> >>> > > + if (exitcode & LOADVM_EXITCODE_QUITPARENT) {
> >>> > > + DPRINTF("loadvm_handlers_state_main: End of loop with
> >>> > > QUITPARENT");
> >>> > > + exitcode &= ~LOADVM_EXITCODE_QUITPARENT;
> >>> > > + exitcode &= LOADVM_EXITCODE_QUITLOOP;
> >> >
> >> > Either you want |=, or the first &= is useless.
> > Ooh nicely spotted; yes that should be |= - now I need to figure out why
> > this
> > didn't break things.
> >
> > The idea is we have:
> > 1 outer loadvm_state loop
> > 2 receives packaged command
> > 3 inner_loadvm_state loop
> > 4 receives handle_listen
> > 5 < QUITPARENT
> > 6 < QUITLOOP
> > 7 < QUITLOOP
> > 8 exits
> >
> > so QUITPARENT causes it's parent to exit, and to do that
> > the inner loop transforms QUITPARENT into QUITLOOP as it's
> > exit.
>
> Yes, that was my understanding as well.
>
> We have only two nested loops, but if we had three, should it be
> QUIT_PARENT or QUIT_ALL?
The answer probably depends on why you've got 3 nested loops; either
way is a bit of guesswork about what some potential future user
wants to do.
Dave
--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
