Re: [Libvirt-cim] [PATCH] Make CS.RequestStateChange() agree to proceed if RUNNING|BLOCKED

Kaitlin Rupert wrote: > Dan Smith wrote: >> # HG changeset patch >> # User Dan Smith <danms(a)us.ibm.com&gt; >> # Date 1201026051 28800 >> # Node ID c92db5f8d2b108163d75b32f906c7b55fa4f2854 >> # Parent 335e7862efa1f3cffce393e684179ec6cc8ee4a4 >> Make CS.RequestStateChange() agree to proceed if RUNNING|BLOCKED >> >> This is an interesting Xen quirk propagated through libvirt. For the >> most part, RUNNING and BLOCKED are the same thing to us. > This is a good catch. Seems reasonable to be able to suspend, etc when > the guest is blocked as well as running. +1 > I believe the big issue is that when you try to get the status of your other domains, Domain-0 has to take over in order to get status and return it, which means the other domains will always show up as blocked. So, for a guest, blocked usually means running.