On 04/07/2010 03:38 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
On 04/07/2010 12:39 PM, Laine Stump wrote:
This patch adds a 1 second sleep after telling qemu to start the
restore operation and before telling qemu to start up the
CPUs. Without this sleep, my hardware would end up with the CPUs
started before the restore was started, leading to random (but never
good) behavior. Apparently this is caused by slow hardware, as I
haven't heard of anyone else experiencing this problem.
Is there a BZ number or anything else we can list in the commit message
showing that we've informed the qemu folks about their lack of a
reliable notification that they are ready for the restore?
No, good point. I need to understand the capabilities (and lack) of
what's there before I can file a coherent bug report, but it definitely
should be filed. (I arrived at this "fix" by asking around for advice
when I encountered the problem, rather than by analyzing the code myself.)
ACK. But can you squash this in first? Otherwise, the usleep(1000000)
will silently become a no-op on mingw, rather than sleeping for a second.
As far as I know, qemu_driver.c would never be compiled with mingw,
since it only goes into libvirtd, and mingw is only used to build
client-side code.
Of course there are many other uses of usleep in the code, and some of
them may actually be in client-side code (I haven't checked) but making
them work properly should be a separate commit.
At any rate, I don't think I'll be committing this just yet - I sent the
patch to the list expecting there might be differences of opinion, but
figured we had to start a discussion about what should be done somewhere.
diff --git i/bootstrap.conf w/bootstrap.conf
index ac2f8e6..d55dc71 100644
--- i/bootstrap.conf
+++ w/bootstrap.conf
@@ -56,6 +56,7 @@ strsep
sys_stat
time_r
useless-if-before-free
+usleep
vasprintf
verify
vc-list-files
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list