Jan Kiszka wrote: > Having both kvm_eat_signal and kvm_eat_signals makes the code harder to > read. Moreover, given the single caller of kvm_eat_signals, there is no > real reason to keep it in a separate function. > >
Given that with the iothread we spend very little time processing signals in vcpu threads, maybe it's better to drop the loop completely. The common case is zero or one pending signals. The uncommon case of two or more pending signals will be handled by the KVM_RUN ioctl returning immediately with -EINTR (i.e. in the outer loop). -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. Use priority code J8TL2D2. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
