Re: util/async-teardown.c: is it really needed for --disable-system build?

[Claudio Imbrenda]

On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 12:48:14 +0300
Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru> wrote:

> 12.08.2023 12:38, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> ...
> > It smells like, at the very least, os-posix.c should be split. We shouldn't 
> > include
> > a ton of qemu-system functionality (like very specific option parsing) into 
> > qemu-nbd
> > for example.
> > 
> > How about splitting os-posix.c into a few files in util/ (not in the root 
> > dir), and
> > adding them to util_ss in case of posix-os?  Ditto for os-win32.c, I guess, 
> > but I
> > haven't looked at this.
> > 
> > And for the question in $subj, this one needs to be guarded by 
> > CONFIG_SOFTMMU.  
> 
> Or maybe better yet, put the softmmu-specific functions (one very good 
> example here
> is os_parse_cmd_args() function - it clearly belongs to softmmu/, it should 
> never
> has been in global os-foo.c but in some softmmu-os-foo.c instead.  This way,
> async-teardown.c is moved to softmmu/ too, maybe os-linux-async-teardown.c.
> 
> /mjt

I think we could guard the offending item with CONFIG_SOFTMMU for now,
to immediately fix the issues you raised, and do the refactoring you
proposed later (e.g. next cycle).

what do you think?