31 Oct
2013
31 Oct
'13
5 p.m.
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 05:52:11PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 31/10/2013 17:48, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
But code duplication is bad.
So should we make a table of IO_ERROR-like states to avoid code duplication? You have to draw a line somewhere...
I think IO error for example is broken in that you can't pause but can run then pause. Seems strange.
"cont" moves you out of IO_ERROR. IO_ERROR is already a non-running state (all states except RUNNING are non-running), "stop" is a no-op in non-running states. I don't like it that much either, but it works.
Paolo
Interesting. Why do we have - { RUN_STATE_INTERNAL_ERROR, RUN_STATE_PAUSED }, then?