Am 04.07.2012 12:27, schrieb Fabien Chouteau:
> On 07/04/2012 12:07 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> Am 03.07.2012 17:07, schrieb Fabien Chouteau:
>>> On 07/03/2012 04:49 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>>> Il 03/07/2012 16:00, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
>>>>> I was just talking on #qemu this morning about the equivalent question
>>>>> of whether the ARM semihosting exit function ought to be doing a
>>>>> qemu_system_shutdown_request rather than a plain exit()...
>>>>>
>>>>> The interesting question for the qemu-char case is whether the code that
>>>>> feeds this magic byte to us is expecting it to have immediate effect
>>>>> or is happy to continue execution and let us shut down with a slight
>>>>> delay.
>>>>
>>>> And also whether it is supposed to obey -no-shutdown...
>>>
>>> I didn't know this option...
>>>
>>> My goal is to make ctrl-a x to close Qemu in a clean way.
>>> The current exit(0) skips a lot of cleanup/close functions, for
>>> example in block drivers.
>>>
>>> We can create a new shutdown function that will override the
>>> -no-shutdown option to keep a consistent behavior with ctrl-a x.
>>>
>>> void qemu_system_force_shutdown(void)
>>> {
>>> no_shutdown = 0;
>>> qemu_system_shutdown_request();
>>> }
>>
>> The same thing already exists in qemu_system_killed(). It could use the
>> same new function if you added it. Or you could reuse the existing code
>> in the ctrl-a x handler by sending SIGTERM.
>>
>
> This function will change the behavior of ctrl-a x by printing "qemu:
> terminating on signal 0".
True (on signal 15 actually if you send SIGTERM). So using a new
qemu_system_force_shutdown() in both places is fine with me.
Kevin
