Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 10481: regressions - FAIL

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 2011-12-13 at 14:54 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 10481: regressions 
> - FAIL"):
> > On Tue, 2011-12-13 at 14:48 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 10481: 
> > > regressions - FAIL"):
> > > > You can explicitly ask for a power button event with "xl button-press".
> > > > At a minimum the error message should point to this in preference to
> > > > destroy.
> > > 
> > > That would be a better improvement.
> > 
> > So which do you prefer? An error message pointing to "xl button-press"
> > or sending the button press?
> 
> Sorry, I misphrased my email.  I should have said that would be a
> "minimal improvement".  I would prefer "xl shutdown" to send the
> button press.

Just to clarify a bit further: do you think libxl_domain_shutdown should
implement this fallback or should it be left to xl to do?

Shall "xl reboot"/libxl_domain_reboot do the same?

NB: currently we have libxl_domain_shutdown which takes an integer
"request" type. I intend to split this into
libxl_domain_{shutdown,reboot}. There are some other request types
currently but they are not useful:

      * "suspend" is already provided by libxl_domain_suspend, which
        includes all the other required scaffolding which
        libxl_domain_shutdown does not,.
      * "halt" which is a synonym for shutdown 
      * "crash" which is unused and isn't supported at least by Linux,
        someone can add "xl crash" and libxl_domain_crash if they really
        want it.

Ian.


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