Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH v2 00/29] libxl: Cancelling asynchronous operations

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Euan Harris writes ("Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/29] libxl: Cancelling asynchronous 
operations"):
> Yes, that would work, but an open loop approach like that can lead to
> frustratingly unreliable tests.   I think it would be best to make
> the test aware of the state of the helper - or even in control of it.
> That would allow us to wait for the helper to reach a particular state
> before killing it.

This is less bad than you might think because the helper's progress
messages to libxl are at fairly predictable progress points.

In any case, the helper (in general) runs concurrently with libxl, so
when libxl decides to stop the progress there will often be a race.
(Sometimes the helper has to stop and wait for libxl to confirm.)

Ian.

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