WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-ia64-devel

Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] [Xen-ia64][PATCH] Fix NVRAM data can not be saved w

To: "Zhang, Xing Z" <xing.z.zhang@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] [Xen-ia64][PATCH] Fix NVRAM data can not be saved when guest execute "reboot" instruction
From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@xxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 15:37:46 -0400
Cc: xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:35:39 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <823A93EED437D048963A3697DB0E35DE64691D@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-ia64-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Discussion of the ia64 port of Xen <xen-ia64-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-ia64-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-ia64-devel>, <mailto:xen-ia64-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-ia64-devel>, <mailto:xen-ia64-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Organization: OSLO R&D
References: <823A93EED437D048963A3697DB0E35DE64691D@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-ia64-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 2007-06-26 at 15:55 +0800, Zhang, Xing Z wrote:
> Different with old Xen, executing “reboot” instruction in guest will
> not fall into destroy() function of Xend in current changeset. This
> makes NVRAM save not work when guest reboot.
> 
> The patch fixes this issue. It is a little dirty because I can’t find
> a more elegant way.
> 
>  
> 
> Alex, If you agree with this patch, could you check in it ASAP and
> push it into Xen-unstable tree? So that RH can pick this patch for
> RHEL5.1.
> 
> Any comment is welcome. Thx.

   Isn't this rather asymmetrical with our domain destroy hook?  Why
can't we do something similar here?  Overloading the function with a
#def is pretty ugly.  Thanks,

        Alex

-- 
Alex Williamson                             HP Open Source & Linux Org.


_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel