Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0 of 5] xl shutdown compatibility with xm

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2012-10-25 at 16:32 +0100, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
> Thursday, October 25, 2012, 5:23:17 PM, you wrote:
> 
> > Sander Eikelenboom writes ("Re: [PATCH 0 of 5] xl shutdown compatibility 
> > with xm"):
> >> 
> >> So Ian, what would your prefer ?
> >> 
> >> A) only fix the xendomains init script, since it's automated and a 
> >> administator can not intervene, for manual usage of xl shutdown keep the 
> >> current behaviour
> >> B) Drop the -F option and let xl shutdown always try the acpi fallback. In 
> >> this case you can very well turn around IanC's argumentation:
> >>    An administrator who knows that a domain can't be shutdown with either 
> >> the pv or acpi fallback just shouldn't try to use xl shutdown manually.
> >>    (and if he does probably nothing devastating will happen)
> >> C) Invert the -F option, to NOT try to use the apci fallback
> >> 
> >> I think option B is acceptable and preferable:
> 
> > I agree with you.  But I think we need to convince Ian C.
> 
> Ok I tried with the reasoning above.

> I agree with his argumentation that for domains that do not properly
> shutdown with pv and acpi fallback intervention by a admin was and is
> required.

ACPI fallback != shutdown. It might just as likely be a hibernate or
(more likely) a reboot.

Are we going to add code to xl which forces on_reboot = destroy when xl
shutdown -F is invoked on a domain?

> But i try to explain that for this special case it doesn't matter if
> xl shutdown tries to do the acpi fallback automatically, since this
> admin shouldn't use xl shutdown on this domain anyway.

Whether they should or not the xendomains script is going to magically
do it for them.

Ian.


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel