Hi Paolo,
On Sun, Sep 25, 2022 at 9:07 AM Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Paolo,
>
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 5:52 PM Marc-André Lureau
> <marcandre.lur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 12:52 PM Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> From: Bin Meng <bin.m...@windriver.com>
> >>
> >> The maximum number of wait objects for win32 should be
> >> MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS, not MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS + 1.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bin.m...@windriver.com>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> Changes in v3:
> >> - move the check of adding the same HANDLE twice to a separete patch
> >>
> >> Changes in v2:
> >> - fix the logic in qemu_add_wait_object() to avoid adding
> >> the same HANDLE twice
> >>
> >> util/main-loop.c | 11 +++++++----
> >> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/util/main-loop.c b/util/main-loop.c
> >> index f00a25451b..cb018dc33c 100644
> >> --- a/util/main-loop.c
> >> +++ b/util/main-loop.c
> >> @@ -363,10 +363,10 @@ void qemu_del_polling_cb(PollingFunc *func, void
> >> *opaque)
> >> /* Wait objects support */
> >> typedef struct WaitObjects {
> >> int num;
> >> - int revents[MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS + 1];
> >> - HANDLE events[MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS + 1];
> >> - WaitObjectFunc *func[MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS + 1];
> >> - void *opaque[MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS + 1];
> >> + int revents[MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS];
> >> + HANDLE events[MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS];
> >> + WaitObjectFunc *func[MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS];
> >> + void *opaque[MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS];
> >> } WaitObjects;
> >>
> >> static WaitObjects wait_objects = {0};
> >> @@ -395,6 +395,9 @@ void qemu_del_wait_object(HANDLE handle,
> >> WaitObjectFunc *func, void *opaque)
> >> if (w->events[i] == handle) {
> >> found = 1;
> >> }
> >> + if (i == MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS - 1) {
> >> + break;
> >> + }
> >
> >
> > hmm
> >
> >>
> >> if (found) {
> >> w->events[i] = w->events[i + 1];
> >> w->func[i] = w->func[i + 1];
> >
> >
> > The way deletion works is by moving the i+1 element (which is always zeroed
> > for i == MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS) to i.
> >
> > After your patch, for i == MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS, we no longer clear the
> > last value, and instead rely simply on updated w->num:
> >
> > if (found) {
> > w->num--;
> > }
> >
> > So your patch looks ok to me, but I prefer the current code.
> >
> > Paolo, what do you say?
>
> Ping?
>
Ping?
Regards,
Bin
