On Sun, Sep 26, 2021 at 12:34 PM Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <
f4bug@amsat.org> wrote:
On Sun, Sep 26, 2021 at 8:14 PM Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 6:00 AM Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@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 <imp@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'...
Warner