Il 12/03/2012 06:13, Osier Yang ha scritto:
> On 03/11/2012 10:37 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Il 05/03/2012 11:25, Osier Yang ha scritto:
>>> This introduces a new paused reason VIR_DOMAIN_PAUSED_SUSPEND,
>>> and new suspend event type VIR_DOMAIN_EVENT_SUSPENDED_SUSPEND.
>>>
>>> While a SUSPEND event occurs, the running domain status will be
>>> transferred to "paused" with reason "VIR_DOMAIN_PAUSED_SUSPEND",
>>> and a new domain lifecycle event emitted with type
>>> VIR_DOMAIN_EVENT_SUSPENDED_SUSPEND.
>>> ---
>>
>> Does "virsh resume" correctly wakeup such a domain?
>
> Ah, yes, I prohibited the situation waking up a domain which
> wasn't paused by SUSPEND event. But here I forgot it.
>
> If not, perhaps a
>> different state should be added so that "virsh resume" can look at the
>> state and issue the appropriate monitor command (or alternatively, it
>> could be considered a QEMU bug).
>
> We have the paused reason. And the patch which should be
> squashed in in the attachment.
>From the patch:
> + qemuReportError(VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR, "%s",
> + _("domain paused from guest side can't be resumed, "
> + "you might want to wakeup it"));
> goto endjob;
This is not an internal error. It should have a precise error code so
that for example virsh can refer the user to dompmwakeup.
Personally I think that using just "virsh suspend"/"virsh resume" would
have been a fine user interface if you use the PAUSED state (with "virsh
suspend --pm" for example). Then there would have been no need for
"virsh dompmwakeup" at all.
There is still time to change it, but it needs to be done quite soon.
BTW, another thing to test is what happens if you send "virsh suspend"
after putting the guest into S3.
Paolo
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list