On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 01:29:11PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 11:38:31AM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> > @@ -4126,10 +4150,23 @@ void monitor_init(Chardev *chr, int flags)
> > qemu_mutex_unlock(&monitor_lock);
> > }
> >
> > +static void monitor_io_thread_destroy(void)
> > +{
> > + iothread_destroy(mon_global.mon_io_thread);
> > + mon_global.mon_io_thread = NULL;
> > +}
> > +
> > void monitor_cleanup(void)
> > {
> > Monitor *mon, *next;
> >
> > + /*
> > + * We need to explicitly stop the iothread (but not destroy it),
> > + * cleanup the monitor resources, then destroy the iothread. See
> > + * again on the glib bug mentioned in 2b316774f6 for a reason.
> > + */
> > + iothread_stop(mon_global.mon_io_thread);
> > +
> > qemu_mutex_lock(&monitor_lock);
> > QLIST_FOREACH_SAFE(mon, &mon_list, entry, next) {
> > QLIST_REMOVE(mon, entry);
> > @@ -4137,6 +4174,8 @@ void monitor_cleanup(void)
> > g_free(mon);
> > }
> > qemu_mutex_unlock(&monitor_lock);
> > +
> > + monitor_io_thread_destroy();
> > }
>
> Minor style comment, I would inline monitor_io_thread_destroy() into
> monitor_cleanup() instead of making it a function.
>
> monitor_io_thread_destroy() relies on iothread_stop() being called
> first. Defining a function with no doc comment creates a risk that
> someone else will call it in the future without first calling
> iothread_stop(). It's safer to inline the code where it cannot be
> misused by accident.
There will be some more lines added to monitor_io_thread_destroy() in
follow-up patches. I was trying to put iothread things all into this
function but I cannot really do that since the glib bug (then we'll
need explicit iothread_stop() above). But sure, I can inline them all.
>
> Also, please name things "iothread" instead of "io_thread" for
> consistency.
Will do. Thanks,
--
Peter Xu
