On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 06:51:11PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 21/08/2013 18:48, Daniel P. Berrange ha scritto: > > No, <on_crash> is the right thing to be using for this from > > libvirt's pov & I don't think we should invent something new. > > The <on_crash> element has always been intended to represent > > handling of guest panics, not qemu internal errors. > > Actually for Xen HVM guests, it mostly traps things such as failed > vmentries. The Xen PV-on-HVM drivers do not register a panic notifier > that moves the guest to the "crashed" state. > > <on_crash> cannot be salvaged, in my opinion, because all domain XMLs in > the wild will have a setting that causes libvirt to add "-device > isa-pvpanic". Thus changing libvirt versions will change guest > hardware, which is _very_ bad. > > In addition, Windows XP and 2003 will show the annoying device wizard > upon a libvirt upgrade, and fixing this is what surfaced all the mess. The existance of a <on_crash> element should not be having any effect on what hardware we create. That is merely a lifecycle policy setting that should be completely independant of the guest device model. eg it is valid to have <on_crash> present in the XML at all times, even if there's no pvpanic device present. That simply means the actions will never be triggered. 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