Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1.1?] qemu_rearm_alarm_timer: do not call rearm if the next deadline is INT64_MAX

[Paolo Bonzini]

Il 29/05/2012 19:09, Stefan Weil ha scritto:
> Am 29.05.2012 15:35, schrieb Stefano Stabellini:
>> qemu_rearm_alarm_timer partially duplicates the code in
>> qemu_next_alarm_deadline to figure out if it needs to rearm the timer.
>> If it calls qemu_next_alarm_deadline, it always rearms the timer even if
>> the next deadline is INT64_MAX.
>>
>> This patch simplifies the behavior of qemu_rearm_alarm_timer and removes
>> the duplicated code, always calling qemu_next_alarm_deadline and only
>> rearming the timer if the deadline is less than INT64_MAX.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini<address@hidden>
>>
>> diff --git a/qemu-timer.c b/qemu-timer.c
>> index de98977..81ff824 100644
>> --- a/qemu-timer.c
>> +++ b/qemu-timer.c
>> @@ -112,14 +112,10 @@ static int64_t qemu_next_alarm_deadline(void)
>>
>>   static void qemu_rearm_alarm_timer(struct qemu_alarm_timer *t)
>>   {
>> -    int64_t nearest_delta_ns;
>> -    if (!rt_clock->active_timers&&
>> -        !vm_clock->active_timers&&
>> -        !host_clock->active_timers) {
>> -        return;
>> +    int64_t nearest_delta_ns = qemu_next_alarm_deadline();
>> +    if (nearest_delta_ns<  INT64_MAX) {
>> +        t->rearm(t, nearest_delta_ns);
>>       }
>> -    nearest_delta_ns = qemu_next_alarm_deadline();
>> -    t->rearm(t, nearest_delta_ns);
>>   }
>>
>>   /* TODO: MIN_TIMER_REARM_NS should be optimized */
> 
> Reviewed-by: Stefan Weil <address@hidden>
> 
> This patch clearly improves the current code and fixes
> an abort on Darwin (reported by Andreas Färber) and maybe
> other hosts. Therefore I changed the subject and suggest
> to consider this patch for QEMU 1.1.

Only with a Tested-by from Andreas.

Paolo