Ping? Can we at least change the default [2/2] or should I send a v2 for that one? Martin On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 04:27:40PM +0100, Martin Kletzander wrote: > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 02:18:37PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 09:22:05AM +0100, Martin Kletzander wrote: > > > From: Pavel Fux <pavel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Adding an option to change monitor socket opening timeout > > > the current default is 3 seconds and in some cases it's not enough > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Pavel Fux <pavel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Martin Kletzander <mkletzan@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > > > > Notes: > > > I modified the description in the config file, made the use of the > > > opaque argument in qemuMonitorOpen and rebased it on current master. > > > > > > I also added the config options in augeas test to make the 'make > > > check' pass. > > > > IMHO we shouldn't add this config parameter. This kind of parameter is > > basically saying "our code doesn't work by default, set this to fix it" > > which is just horrible behaviour. Further more an admin won't even find > > out about this until the worst possible time. Just increase the default > > timeout if we need to. Even better would be to figure out how we can > > properly fix this to avoid any need for timeout at all. > > > > The same can be said about e.g. audio-related options in the config > file or (when going to extremes) debug logs. Yes, there might be > problems and this is a way how admins/users can check where a > particular problem might be. And the very fact that we need to change > this variable now does in fact proves that this might need another > change in the future. Having this particular value configurable is > merely a _option_ for admins/users and I see no drawback at all in it. > > As Rich suggested (and Cole copied), check out the number of hits for: > https://www.google.co.uk/search?q="monitor+socket+did+not+show+up"; > > Many of them are related to the domains having managed-save, but since > nobody looked for a root cause of it (as I know of), this might be > related to this very problem. > > Does this mean ACK to [2/2] and NACK to [1/2] then? > > Martin > > P.S.: I also forgot to mention that this might most probably resolve > these bugs: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=892273 > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=895901 > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=987088 > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051364 > > > Regards, > > 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 > -- > libvir-list mailing list > libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list