Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] libxl: don't set backend state to 5 when trying to unplug a device

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Roger Pau Monné writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] libxl: don't set backend state 
to 5 when trying to unplug a device"):
> 2012/1/13 Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> > I think really any changes in these areas should be backed up with
> > empirical experiments on a variety of system types (both front and
> > back), otherwise we are basing things on supposition and heresay about
> > how things are supposed to/do work. No one really knows for sure
> > (witness the number of times we've all gone round on this).

I agree that we don't seem to know what's going on.  One way to try to
understand more would be to look at the xend code, since that's what
everyone currently has to work with.

> Ok, I'm doing a new patch that enclosures everything inside a
> transaction, and I will test it both on NetBSD and Linux. However, I
> have a doubt, can we assume that a transaction that only performs a
> read will always succeed (xs_transaction_end will never return < 0)?

I think the answer is "yes" (or alternatively "you can ignore the
error if there is one") but I can't see any good reason for wanting to
know the answer to that question.

Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel