+Daniel,
On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 8:04 PM Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +more people
>
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 6:21 AM Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Paolo,
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 25, 2022 at 9:07 AM Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Paolo,
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 5:52 PM Marc-André Lureau
> > > <marcandre.lur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 12:52 PM Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> From: Bin Meng <bin.m...@windriver.com>
> > > >>
> > > >> The maximum number of wait objects for win32 should be
> > > >> MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS, not MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS + 1.
> > > >>
> > > >> Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bin.m...@windriver.com>
> > > >> ---
> > > >>
> > > >> Changes in v3:
> > > >> - move the check of adding the same HANDLE twice to a separete patch
> > > >>
> > > >> Changes in v2:
> > > >> - fix the logic in qemu_add_wait_object() to avoid adding
> > > >> the same HANDLE twice
> > > >>
> > > >> util/main-loop.c | 11 +++++++----
> > > >> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > >>
> > > >> diff --git a/util/main-loop.c b/util/main-loop.c
> > > >> index f00a25451b..cb018dc33c 100644
> > > >> --- a/util/main-loop.c
> > > >> +++ b/util/main-loop.c
> > > >> @@ -363,10 +363,10 @@ void qemu_del_polling_cb(PollingFunc *func, void
> > > >> *opaque)
> > > >> /* Wait objects support */
> > > >> typedef struct WaitObjects {
> > > >> int num;
> > > >> - int revents[MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS + 1];
> > > >> - HANDLE events[MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS + 1];
> > > >> - WaitObjectFunc *func[MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS + 1];
> > > >> - void *opaque[MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS + 1];
> > > >> + int revents[MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS];
> > > >> + HANDLE events[MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS];
> > > >> + WaitObjectFunc *func[MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS];
> > > >> + void *opaque[MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS];
> > > >> } WaitObjects;
> > > >>
> > > >> static WaitObjects wait_objects = {0};
> > > >> @@ -395,6 +395,9 @@ void qemu_del_wait_object(HANDLE handle,
> > > >> WaitObjectFunc *func, void *opaque)
> > > >> if (w->events[i] == handle) {
> > > >> found = 1;
> > > >> }
> > > >> + if (i == MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS - 1) {
> > > >> + break;
> > > >> + }
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > hmm
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> if (found) {
> > > >> w->events[i] = w->events[i + 1];
> > > >> w->func[i] = w->func[i + 1];
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The way deletion works is by moving the i+1 element (which is always
> > > > zeroed for i == MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS) to i.
> > > >
> > > > After your patch, for i == MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS, we no longer clear the
> > > > last value, and instead rely simply on updated w->num:
> > > >
> > > > if (found) {
> > > > w->num--;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > So your patch looks ok to me, but I prefer the current code.
> > > >
> > > > Paolo, what do you say?
> > >
> > > Ping?
> > >
> >
> > Ping?
> >
>
> Could this series be merged? Thanks,
>
Since Polo keeps silent, Daniel would you help queue this series? Thanks!
Regards,
Bin
