On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:40:45 +0100
"Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 09:35:04AM -0300, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 14:55:37 +0800
> > Wen Congyang <wency@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > >> +static void panicked_perform_action(void)
> > > >> +{
> > > >> + switch(panicked_action) {
> > > >> + case PANICKED_REPORT:
> > > >> + panicked_mon_event("report");
> > > >> + break;
> > > >> +
> > > >> + case PANICKED_PAUSE:
> > > >> + panicked_mon_event("pause");
> > > >> + vm_stop(RUN_STATE_GUEST_PANICKED);
> > > >> + break;
> > > >> +
> > > >> + case PANICKED_QUIT:
> > > >> + panicked_mon_event("quit");
> > > >> + exit(0);
> > > >> + break;
> > > >> + }
> > > >
> > > > Having the data argument is not needed/wanted. The mngt app can guess it if it
> > > > needs to know it, but I think it doesn't want to.
> > >
> > > Libvirt will do something when the kernel is panicked, so it should know the action
> > > in qemu side.
> >
> > But the action will be set by libvirt itself, no?
>
> Sure, but the whole world isn't libvirt. If the process listening to the
> monitor is not the same as the process which launched the VM, then I
> think including the action is worthwhile. Besides, the way Wen has done
> this is identical to what we already do with QEVENT_WATCHDOG and I think
> it is desirable to keep consistency here.
That's right, I had forgotten about the WATCHDOG event. Maybe it would
make more sense to have this info in a query- command though, specially if
we plan to have a command to change that setting.
But I won't oppose having it in the event.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
