On Sun, Sep 26, 2021 at 12:34 PM Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org>
wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 26, 2021 at 8:14 PM Warner Losh <i...@bsdimp.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 6:00 AM Richard Henderson <
> richard.hender...@linaro.org> wrote:
> >> On 9/21/21 11:14 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
> >> > Create dummy signal queueing function so we can start to integrate
> other
> >> > architectures (at the cost of signals remaining broken) to tame the
> >> > dependency graph a bit and to bring in signals in a more controlled
> >> > fashion.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Warner Losh <i...@bsdimp.com>
> >> > ---
> >> > bsd-user/qemu.h | 1 +
> >> > bsd-user/signal.c | 8 ++++++++
> >> > 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+)
>
> >> > +int queue_signal(CPUArchState *env, int sig, target_siginfo_t *info)
> >> > +{
> >> > + return 1;
> >> > +}
> >>
> >> Both here and in linux-user, there are no error conditions. We should
> change the return
> >> to void.
> >
> >
> > In this stubbed out version, there's no errors. But bsd-user can return
> -EAGAIN when
> > alloc_sigqueue fails (which it can if there are no free qemu_sigqueue
> structures in
> > the preallocated list0. However, having said that, nothing checks the
> return value
> > so it's as if it is void... So I'll change it to void here...
>
> kinda related:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg836833.html
Not sure how I missed this... too many filters I guess.
I've sent a reply, but the right thing to do is to eliminate *that* wart
too. I'm always
torn between 'oh, linux-user went in a different direction that I like
better' for something
and adopting it and 'oh, more churn in upstreaming, I'll never get done and
how do I make
sure I don't break anything'...
Warner
