Il 21/08/2013 16:30, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto: >> I think the same reasoning went behind the PANICKED state, and for most >> cases it's going to be disastrous to put the guest to run again, > > Why will it? It will most likely just call halt a bit later. I agree. >> but I can understand that this is up user/mngt to decide this, not QEMU. > > I don't have a problem with this patch as such, so > > Acked-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> > > though I'm still not really sure why do we > want to block guest immediately on panic. > Why not let it call halt a bit later? To make sure the panic is detected, and action taken, in the host even if management has crashed at the time. For example, even if you have reboot-on-panic active, management has time to take a core dump of the paused guest _before_ the reboot. Paolo -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list