[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [XEN PATCH 6/7] xenstored: do_introduce: handle the late_init case
Hi Stefano, On 08/01/2022 00:49, Stefano Stabellini wrote: From: Luca Miccio <lucmiccio@xxxxxxxxx> If the function is called with late_init set then also notify the domain using the xenstore event channel. Signed-off-by: Luca Miccio <lucmiccio@xxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxx> CC: wl@xxxxxxx CC: Anthony PERARD <anthony.perard@xxxxxxxxxx> CC: Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx> CC: julien@xxxxxxx --- tools/xenstore/xenstored_domain.c | 15 ++++++++++----- All the changes to the protocol should be reflected in docs/misc/xenstore.txt. However... 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/tools/xenstore/xenstored_domain.c b/tools/xenstore/xenstored_domain.c index d03c7d93a9..17b8021ca8 100644 --- a/tools/xenstore/xenstored_domain.c +++ b/tools/xenstore/xenstored_domain.c @@ -429,7 +429,7 @@ static void domain_conn_reset(struct domain *domain)static struct domain *introduce_domain(const void *ctx,unsigned int domid, - evtchn_port_t port, bool restore) + evtchn_port_t port, bool restore, bool late_init) { struct domain *domain; int rc; @@ -461,6 +461,9 @@ static struct domain *introduce_domain(const void *ctx, /* Now domain belongs to its connection. */ talloc_steal(domain->conn, domain);+ if (late_init)+ xenevtchn_notify(xce_handle, domain->port); ... I am not convinced the parameter late_init is necessary. I believe it would be safe to always raise an event channel because a domain should be resilient (event channel are just to say "Please check the status", there are no data carried). If you really need late_init, then it should be made optional to avoid breaking existing user of Xenstore (IHMO the protocol is stable and should be backward compatible). Cheers, -- Julien Grall
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |