On Tue, 2014-08-05 at 20:30 +0100, Wei Liu wrote: > On Tue, Aug 05, 2014 at 07:45:48PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > [...] > > > > > Sure. I think having an API that emulates a power reset button would be > > > > > a nice addition to libxl's domain operations. The destroy/start > > > > > approach incurs a small bit of overhead, which would be avoided with > > > > > such an API. Clients (perhaps incorrectly) implementing their own > > > > > notion of reset would also be avoided. > > > > > > > > I think this ought to become pretty easy once Wei's patches to record > > > > the guest cfg in libxl are completed. Wei -- what do you think? > > > > > > > > > > I don't think this "reset" API will need to record any state, i.e. this > > > feature looks unrelated to my work. What do I miss? > > > > It's a forced reboot, so the API would need to destroy and then recreate > > the domain. Recreate would need to use the state your patches arrange > > for libxl to store. > > > > Oh you were talking about pesisting state across hard reset, that's of > course achievable. I think hard reset is more or less the same as > reboot. > > That's still somewhat orthogonal to my work though. Not having the > capability to presist state across in libxl doesn't prevent us from > introducing "reset". I think this is the status quo of "reboot" API, > isn't it? There is no "reboot" API in the sense we are talking about. libxl_domain_reboot() asks the guest to reboot itself. The resulting actual reboot is handled by the toolstack receiving LIBXL_EVENT_TYPE_DOMAIN_DEATH and using libxl_domain_destroy +libxl_domain_create to recreate the domain, prior to your changes only the toolstack app could do this because only xl/libvirt knew the actual domain cfg. With your changes a new libxl_domain_hard_reboot could, I think, be written which does the reboot. Ian. -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list