RE: [Xen-devel] poweroff in 3.2 and 3.3

To:	"Kevin Tian" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject:	RE: [Xen-devel] poweroff in 3.2 and 3.3
From:	"Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	Thu, 20 Nov 2008 08:31:27 +0000
Cc:	"xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 'Keir Fraser' <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date:	Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:32:20 -0800
Envelope-to:	www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to:	<0A882F4D99BBF6449D58E61AAFD7EDD601E23B4B@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help:	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id:	Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post:	<mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe:	<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe:	<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References:	<49242037.76E4.0078.0@xxxxxxxxxx> <C549C36E.29329%keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <0A882F4D99BBF6449D58E61AAFD7EDD601E23B3F@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <49252B4B.76E4.0078.0@xxxxxxxxxx> <0A882F4D99BBF6449D58E61AAFD7EDD601E23B4B@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender:	xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>>> "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx> 20.11.08 09:19 >>>
>>But my point is that this is wrong (no matter how it's 
>>worded): entering
>>S5 also uses this path, and in that case there's nothing that stops
>>non-current vCPU-s of dom0.
>
>I see. You're right. But that seems not matter as you're doing S5. :-)

See my other reply just sent to Keir's similar question.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

xen-devel

RE: [Xen-devel] poweroff in 3.2 and 3.3