Re: [Xen-devel] [OSSTEST PATCH 11/16] ts-debian-fixup: use correct resume device

[Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 02:42:53PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Wei Liu writes ("Re: [OSSTEST PATCH 11/16] ts-debian-fixup: use correct 
> resume device"):
> > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 02:20:29PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > I don't think the guest booting "eventually" after some timeout is
> > > correct.
> > 
> > The OS is honoring whatever is written in the resume file. That's the
> > correct behaviour to me.
> > 
> > Booting after trying is better than not booting at all.  That parameter
> > isn't vital to a functional system. This has always been the case since
> > forever. It is only the "timeout" in the past is shorter so osstest
> > never noticed it.
> > 
> > What is not correct is the content of the file. We can't blame the guest
> > OS for that.
> 
> I agree with all of this.  But, the overall behaviour is not correct.
> Even though all of the things that osstest specified to
> xen-create-image were correct.  Therefore there is a bug.
> 
> > > > There is no option in xen-create-image to manipulate extra=. The only
> > > > viable solution is to provide a new template. That seems overkill and
> > > > would require more code.
> > > 
> > > What you're saying is that this infelicity in xen-tools is not
> > > particularly easy to fix.  That doesn't mean it shouldn't be reported
> > > as a bug.
> > 
> > There is nothing to fix. System administrator should provide a proper
> > template -- that's what xen-tools developers most likely to say.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean here.  We are using the config template
> provided by xen-tools.  The reuse of the host's initrd is suggested by
> the xen-create-image documentation.
> 

TBH I don't know what to write in a report. What is the expected
behaviour?

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