Am 27.09.2016 um 18:55 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben: > > > On 27/09/2016 18:29, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 27/09/2016 16:06, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > >>> See the doc comments for a description of this new coroutine API. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@redhat.com> > >>> --- > >>> include/qemu/coroutine.h | 13 +++++++++++++ > >>> util/qemu-coroutine.c | 5 +++++ > >>> 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/include/qemu/coroutine.h b/include/qemu/coroutine.h > >>> index 29a2078..e6a60d5 100644 > >>> --- a/include/qemu/coroutine.h > >>> +++ b/include/qemu/coroutine.h > >>> @@ -92,6 +92,19 @@ Coroutine *coroutine_fn qemu_coroutine_self(void); > >>> */ > >>> bool qemu_in_coroutine(void); > >>> > >>> +/** > >>> + * Return true if the coroutine is currently entered > >>> + * > >>> + * A coroutine is "entered" if it has not yielded from the current > >>> + * qemu_coroutine_enter() call used to run it. This does not mean that > >>> the > >>> + * coroutine is currently executing code since it may have transferred > >>> control > >>> + * to another coroutine using qemu_coroutine_enter(). > >>> + * > >>> + * When several coroutines enter each other there may be no way to know > >>> which > >>> + * ones have already been entered. In such situations this function can > >>> be > >>> + * used to avoid recursively entering coroutines. > >>> + */ > >>> +bool qemu_coroutine_entered(Coroutine *co); > >> > >> Perhaps qemu_coroutine_running is a better name? > > > > I find "running" confusing since the coroutine may not actually be > > currently executing (as mentioned in the doc comment). > > Ok, makes sense. Another possibility is qemu_coroutine_on_stack, but > I'm not sure it's better...
Maybe qemu_coroutine_active()? Kevin