On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 01:48:42PM +0800, Wen Congyang wrote:
At 12/15/2010 11:32 PM, Daniel P. Berrange Write:
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 08:24:44AM -0700, Eric Blake wrote:
>> On 12/15/2010 08:20 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
>>> On 12/14/2010 07:34 PM, Wen Congyang wrote:
>>>
>>> In addition to Hu's comments, and the fact that you are probably going
>>> to revise the exposed interface anyways, here's some additional points.
>>
>> One other point - how does this relate to the timeouts already
>> implemented in places like daemon/event.c or src/util/event.c? Are
>> those implementations already sufficient for your needs without having
>> to write a new implementation? Or conversely, should your patch series
>> be lengthened into rewriting those interfaces to take advantage of your
>> new implementation in order to ease maintenance by focusing all timeout
>> code into a single reusable interface? In other words, I'm still
>> seeking a bit more justification for this patch.
>
> IMHO it should be sufficient for this new code to simply call
> the existing virEventAddTimeout() API, and run the event loop
> in the background thread.
Hmm... I do not notice this API...
Thanks for pointing this.
I rough scan this API, it uses gettimeofday() to calculate the timeout.
The time returns from gettimeofday can be changed by user, and it will
cause some problems...
In theory yes, but in reality that's a non-issue. We've had this
code for 4 years and never had any reports of such a problem.
Daniel