Hi On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 1:09 PM, Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote: > Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> writes: > >> 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. > > Could you two together figure out how to combine your work? Would take > me off this critical path... >
With Peter patches, the monitor is also suspended when the queue of command is too long (when oob-enabled). Thus the variable now covers one of two different cases. My patches only covered the first case simplification (legacy / !oob-enabled suspend). The second case could probably use a similar simplification, looking at the queue length, but at this point I think I'd prefer to keep the variable for clarity and sanity state checking. -- Marc-André Lureau
