Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/3] libxc/xc_domain_resume: Update comment.

[Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 2016-01-25 at 16:06 -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> To hopefully clarify what it meant.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Âtools/libxc/xc_resume.c | 7 +++++--
> Â1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/libxc/xc_resume.c b/tools/libxc/xc_resume.c
> index 87d4324..19ba2a3 100644
> --- a/tools/libxc/xc_resume.c
> +++ b/tools/libxc/xc_resume.c
> @@ -248,9 +248,12 @@ out:
> Â/*
> Â * Resume execution of a domain after suspend shutdown.
> Â * This can happen in one of two ways:
> - *ÂÂ1. Resume with special return code.
> - *ÂÂ2. Reset guest environment so it believes it is resumed in a new
> + *ÂÂ1. (fast=1) Resume with special return code (1) that the guest
> + *ÂÂÂÂÂgets from SCHEDOP_shutdown:SHUTDOWN_suspend.

"SCHEDOP_shutdown(SHUTDOWN_suspend)" looks more like the function call
which this in effect is.

I think I'd say "Resume the guest without resetting the domain environment.
The guests's call to SCHEDOP_shutdown(SHUTDOWN_suspend) will return 1".

(assuming that is true re resetting)

> + *
> + *ÂÂ2. (fast=0) Reset guest environment so it believes it is resumed in a new
> Â *ÂÂÂÂÂdomain context.

with the above I would suggesting adding "The guests's call to
SCHEDOP_shutdown(SHUTDOWN_suspend) will return 0".

> + *
> Â * (2) should be used only for guests which cannot handle the special
> Â * new return code. (1) is always safe (but slower).

Is this correct? I'd have said (2) was always safe but slow?

And I would invert the first, that is to say that (1) should be used in
preference with guests which support it.

Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel