On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 09:53:49AM +0200, Jiri Denemark wrote: > On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 14:31:29 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 02:36:02PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote: > > > On 22.08.2011 20:31, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > > > We need to make this more controllable by apps, by making it possible > > > > to send just the SIGTERM and not the SIGKILL. Then we can add a new > > > > flag to virDomainDestroy to request this SIGTERM only behaviour. If > > > > the guest does not actually die, the mgmt app can then just reinvoke > > > > virDomainDestroy without the flag, to get the full SIGTERM+SIGKILL > > > > behaviour we have today. > > > > > > Sending signal to qemu process is just a part of domain destroying. What > > > about cleanup code (emitting event, audit log, removing transient > > > domain, ...)? Can I rely on monitor EOF handling code? What should be > > > the return value for this case when only SIGTERM is sent? > > > > QEMU will send an event on the monitor when it shuts down cleanly > > via 'SIGQUIT' - we already handle that. > > Yes, but that will confuse libvirt and apps because we won't be able to > distinguish between normal shutdown and destroy with flushed caches. But > that should probably be solved in qemu by sending different events in this two > cases. Well if that is the case, then we already have that problem, because libvirt is already sending SIGQUIT to destroy QEMU. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list