Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH OSSTEST] Toolstack: Do not pass -F to xm shutdown (Was: Re: [xen-4.2-testing test] 57630: regressions - FAIL)

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 01.06.15 at 11:42, <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.

Makes sense, thanks for explaining.

Jan


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