From: Jan K. <jan...@we...> - 2008-05-12 10:50:06
|
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. Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan...@we...> --- qemu/qemu-kvm.c | 11 ++++------- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) Index: b/qemu/qemu-kvm.c =================================================================== --- a/qemu/qemu-kvm.c +++ b/qemu/qemu-kvm.c @@ -210,11 +210,12 @@ static int kvm_eat_signal(CPUState *env, return ret; } - -static void kvm_eat_signals(CPUState *env, int timeout) +static void kvm_main_loop_wait(CPUState *env, int timeout) { int r = 0; + pthread_mutex_unlock(&qemu_mutex); + while (kvm_eat_signal(env, 0)) r = 1; if (!r && timeout) { @@ -223,14 +224,10 @@ static void kvm_eat_signals(CPUState *en while (kvm_eat_signal(env, 0)) ; } -} -static void kvm_main_loop_wait(CPUState *env, int timeout) -{ - pthread_mutex_unlock(&qemu_mutex); - kvm_eat_signals(env, timeout); pthread_mutex_lock(&qemu_mutex); cpu_single_env = env; + vcpu_info[env->cpu_index].signalled = 0; } |