On 07/04/2012 12:32 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> 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.
>
OK, patch on the way...
Thanks,
--
Fabien Chouteau
