On Tue, 2011-03-08 at 11:49 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> # HG changeset patch
> # User Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>
> # Date 1299584929 0
> # Node ID 5084214b8983045d789a86c01e7a0fede46b5e58
> # Parent 0e3211b5c4da98d170ed665c221bcb00e771fc56
> libxl: do not rely on guest to respond when forcing pci device removal
>
> This is consistent with the expected semantics of a forced device
> removal and also avoids a delay when destroying an HVM domain which
> either does not support hot unplug (does not respond to SCI) or has
> crashed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> diff -r 0e3211b5c4da -r 5084214b8983 tools/libxl/libxl_pci.c
> --- a/tools/libxl/libxl_pci.c Tue Mar 08 11:13:12 2011 +0000
> +++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_pci.c Tue Mar 08 11:48:49 2011 +0000
> @@ -866,7 +866,7 @@ static int do_pci_remove(libxl__gc *gc,
>
> /* Remove all functions at once atomically by only signalling
> * device-model for function 0 */
> - if ( (pcidev->vdevfn & 0x7) == 0 ) {
> + if ( !force && (pcidev->vdevfn & 0x7) == 0 ) {
> xs_write(ctx->xsh, XBT_NULL, path, "pci-rem", strlen("pci-rem"));
Shouldn't we maybe send the pci-rem when force removing to give the
guest a chance to do something if it can.
> if (libxl__wait_for_device_model(ctx, domid, "pci-removed",
> NULL, NULL) < 0) {
&& !force ) {
perhaps?
> LIBXL__LOG(ctx, LIBXL__LOG_ERROR, "Device Model didn't
> respond in time");
> @@ -874,8 +874,7 @@ static int do_pci_remove(libxl__gc *gc,
> * SCI, if it doesn't respond in time then we may wish to
> * force the removal.
> */
> - if ( !force )
> - return ERROR_FAIL;
> + return ERROR_FAIL;
> }
> }
> path = libxl__sprintf(gc, "/local/domain/0/device-model/%d/state",
> domid);
The more I think about any of this code the worse the idea of the
"xenstore + wait a bit" API seems, frankly, erroneous.
Gianni
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home