On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 10:48:43AM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> On 03/17/11 10:32, Alon Levy wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 05:48:41PM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> >> > On 03/16/11 16:52, Alon Levy wrote:
> >>> > > +void qxl_server_request_cursor_set(PCIQXLDevice *qxl, QEMUCursor *c,
> >>> > > int x, int y)
> >>> > > +{
> >>> > > + QXLServerCursorSetRequest req;
> >>> > > + int r;
> >>> > > +
> >>> > > + req.req = QXL_SERVER_CURSOR_SET;
> >>> > > + req.data.c = c;
> >>> > > + req.data.x = x;
> >>> > > + req.data.y = y;
> >>> > > + r = write(qxl->ssd.pipe[1], &req, sizeof(req));
> >>> > > + assert(r == sizeof(req));
> >>> > > +}
> >> >
> >> > There's a number of asserts here, which I am not sure is a good thing. I
> >> > don't understand how far down the code this is, and if it is really
> >> > fatal if this write fails?
> > A failure there means we can't write to a pipe between the server thread
> > and the iothread (main thread). That is not supposed to happen - and if
> > it does it means some operation by the spice server will never complete.
> >
> > Same for the asserts below, writes are from spice server thread, reads
> > are in iothread.
>
> But shouldn't this make it try to reconnect? Even if the reconnect
> fails, it shouldn't kill the guest IMHO.
reconnect? between two threads in the qemu process? why would the write
fail to begin with? this is like saying if I'm failing a kvm ioctl I should
just retry.
>
> Cheers,
> Jes
>
>
>
