On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 04:37:56PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > 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. I'm not sure I get the reference to management crashing - we just need to maintain "panicked" state to make sure info is not lost ... > 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 but this sounds like a good reason to support synchronous panic events. -- MST -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list