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

["Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>]

>From: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
>Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 4:17 PM
>
>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).
>

what do you mean by "xen itself is robust to..."?

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