On Sun, Sep 26, 2021 at 9:00 PM Warner Losh <i...@bsdimp.com> wrote:
> 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'...
Oh no worry. I have in my TODO to clean this, but got delayed by the
has_work() refactor series.
