Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> writes: > On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 10:51:33AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> writes: >> >> > It was put into the request object to show whether we'll need to resume >> > the monitor after dispatching the command. Now we move that into the >> > monitor struct so that it might be even used in other places in the >> > future, e.g., out-of-band message flow controls. >> > >> > One thing to mention is that there is no lock needed before when >> > accessing the flag since the request object will always be owned by a >> > single thread. After we move it into monitor struct we need to protect >> > that flag since it might be accessed by multiple threads now. Renaming >> > the qmp_queue_lock into qmp_lock to protect the flag as well. >> > >> > No functional change. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> >> >> Marc-André's "[PATCH v3 04/38] monitor: no need to save need_resume" and >> "[PATCH v3 05/38] monitor: further simplify previous patch" also mess >> with need_resume. Marc-André, could you have a look at this patch and >> the next one? > > Sorry I should have looked at those before hand. I think I must be > waiting for another post to split the patches into two (after > Marc-Andre poked me with that thread) but then I forgot about that. > > So now I suspect we'd better keep that flag since in the next patch > the suspend operation can happen conditionally now.
Could you two together figure out how to combine your work? Would take me off this critical path...
