[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH OSSTEST] Toolstack: Do not pass -F to xm shutdown (Was: Re: [xen-4.2-testing test] 57630: regressions - FAIL)
On Mon, 2015-06-01 at 10:21 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 01.06.15 at 10:34, <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Subject: [PATCH] Toolstack: Do not pass -F to xm shutdown > > > > This is a feature of xl only. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Osstest/Toolstack/xl.pm | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/Osstest/Toolstack/xl.pm b/Osstest/Toolstack/xl.pm > > index dd12ae1..23328d3 100644 > > --- a/Osstest/Toolstack/xl.pm > > +++ b/Osstest/Toolstack/xl.pm > > @@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ sub shutdown_wait ($$$) { > > my $ho = $self->{Host}; > > my $gn = $gho->{Name}; > > my $acpi_fallback = guest_var($gho,'acpi_shutdown','false') eq 'true' > > - ? "F" : ""; > > + && $self->{Name} eq 'xl' ? "F" : ""; > > target_cmd_root($ho,"$self->{_Command} shutdown -w${acpi_fallback} > > $gn", $timeout); > > Well - to me, not knowing much about osstest's structure, catering > for xm in a file called xl.pm seems odd. And then, taking into > consideration a hypothetical 3rd toolstack, I wonder whether > assuming only xl supports -F (instead of "only xm does not support > it") is the more suitable check. xend.pm inherits from xl.pm in a oo-ish way. I did consider adding shutdown_wait to xend.pm to overload this one, but that meant duplicating 95% unaltered. A third toolstack is not hypothetical, libvirt's virsh is supported, but virsh.pm sharing no historical legacy with xl/xm inherets from the toplevel toolstack parent, not the xl one. Ian. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |