On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 04:14:21PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 21/01/21 10:27, Max Reitz wrote: > > > > Sure, I can do that. > > > > I agree that there probably are better solutions than to wrap everything > > in a lock. OTOH, it looks to me like this lock is the most simple > > solution. If Daniel is right[1] and we should drop > > coroutine-sigaltstack altogether (at some point...), perhaps it is best > > to go for the most simple solution now. > > > > [1] > > https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-block/2021-01/msg00808.html > > Yes, between coroutine-ucontext and the upcoming coroutine-asm[1] (which I > have shelved because it was mostly a requirement for x86 CET; but it will > come back some day), sooner or later there will be no reason to keep > coroutine-sigaltstack. Porting coroutine-asm to a new architecture is easy, > I even managed to do it for s390. ;)
FWIW The libucontext impl is all ASM based and has coverage for all the arches we care about: https://github.com/kaniini/libucontext so doesn't seem like there's a need for coroutine-asm if we can rely on libucontext for portability where neede. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
