On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 03:56:42PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 31/10/2013 15:52, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto: > >> > Yes, it does. > > What does it break exactly? > > The point of a panicked event is to examine the guest at a particular > moment in time (e.g. host-initiated crash dump). If you let the guest > run, it may reboot and prevent you from getting a meaningful dump. Well we trust guest anyway, so I think we can trust it to call halt. > >> > But I think that, once we make the pvpanic device is > >> > optional, to a large extent there is no bug. Adding the pvpanic > >> > device to the VM will make libvirt obey <oncrash> instead of the > >> > in-guest setting, and that's it. > >> > > >> > Two months have passed and no casualties have been reported due to > >> > pvpanic. Let's just remove the auto-pvpanic from all machine types in > >> > 1.7 (yes, that's backwards incompatible in a strict sense), document > >> > it in the release notes, and hope that the old QEMU versions with > >> > mandatory pvpanic die of old age. > > > > Nod. I'm fine with that. > > > > I think we still need to do get rid of the PANICKED state somehow. > > If we can't replace it with RUNNING state, let's replace it with PAUSED. > > > > For example, you can't continue from panicked for some reason. > > You can't do a reset. But you can pause and then continue. > > We need to keep the PANICKED state, but we can make it a normal > "resumable" state. If it's resumable how is it different from PAUSED? > Basically it's patches 1 and 2 at > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/229131. Rebasing > will fix the problem highlighted in the commit message of patch 2. > > Paolo Looks like all transitions from paused state should be allowed from panicked state. So why keep it separate? -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list