On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 10:51:33AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> writes: > > > It was put into the request object to show whether we'll need to resume > > the monitor after dispatching the command. Now we move that into the > > monitor struct so that it might be even used in other places in the > > future, e.g., out-of-band message flow controls. > > > > One thing to mention is that there is no lock needed before when > > accessing the flag since the request object will always be owned by a > > single thread. After we move it into monitor struct we need to protect > > that flag since it might be accessed by multiple threads now. Renaming > > the qmp_queue_lock into qmp_lock to protect the flag as well. > > > > No functional change. > > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> > > Marc-André's "[PATCH v3 04/38] monitor: no need to save need_resume" and > "[PATCH v3 05/38] monitor: further simplify previous patch" also mess > with need_resume. Marc-André, could you have a look at this patch and > the next one?
Sorry I should have looked at those before hand. I think I must be waiting for another post to split the patches into two (after Marc-Andre poked me with that thread) but then I forgot about that. So now I suspect we'd better keep that flag since in the next patch the suspend operation can happen conditionally now. Thanks, -- Peter Xu
