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

[Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 20/11/08 08:11, "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> I'm not sure what the WARN_ON() condition would be. A forceful
>> domain_pause()/vcpu_pause() is a good idea anyway.
>> 
>> -- Keir
> 
> I'm pretty sure that domains will be busy catching up missing ticks
> and throw warnings after system is waken up. Why should Xen
> continue the progress even when we're aware the fact that something
> will be hurted if doing so? Return a error with warning thrown out at
> least let user know current condition inapproriate for s3 (e.g. some
> incautious action) who can turn back to normal flow then. This is like
> normal OS suspend flow which simply exits if some checks fail.

If Xen itself itself is now robust to VCPUs still being runnable/running
then I'm fine with warnings only. If Xen isn't, then forceful pausing is
still needed (perhaps with some warnings in addition).

 -- Keir



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