+++ b/cpus.c
@@ -289,9 +289,16 @@ static void qemu_event_increment(void)
/* EAGAIN is fine, a read must be pending. */
if (ret < 0 && errno != EAGAIN) {
-fprintf(stderr, "qemu_event_increment: write() failed: %s\n",
-strerror(errno));
-exit (1);
+
Laszlo Ersek writes:
> On 09/15/11 21:44, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 15 September 2011 18:22, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>> -int no_shutdown = 0;
>>> +volatile int no_shutdown = 0;
>>
>> So why 'volatile' and not 'sig_atomic_t', then?
>
> The sigaction() spec says"volatile sig_atomic_t", so that woul
On 09/15/11 21:16, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 09/15/2011 12:22 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/V2_chap02.html#tag_15_04_03_03
I don't think you can rely on snprintf being signal safe. I think you
should just exit on failure.
OpenBSD lists snp
On 09/15/11 21:44, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 15 September 2011 18:22, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
-int no_shutdown = 0;
+volatile int no_shutdown = 0;
So why 'volatile' and not 'sig_atomic_t', then?
The sigaction() spec says"volatile sig_atomic_t", so that would be
ideal. My assumption was that "si
On 15 September 2011 18:22, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> -int no_shutdown = 0;
> +volatile int no_shutdown = 0;
So why 'volatile' and not 'sig_atomic_t', then?
thanks
-- PMM
On 09/15/2011 12:22 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
Make variables volatile ("sig_atomic_t" should cover "int" and "pid_t").
Also replace calls to functions that are not required to be async-signal-safe
[1]. (I haven't checked if any signal masks and/or previous suspension of the
interrupted thread keep
Make variables volatile ("sig_atomic_t" should cover "int" and "pid_t").
Also replace calls to functions that are not required to be async-signal-safe
[1]. (I haven't checked if any signal masks and/or previous suspension of the
interrupted thread keep the current calls safe.)
termsig_handler()
