Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] vl: allow "cont" from panicked state
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 04:37:56PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 21/08/2013 16:30, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
>> I think the same reasoning went behind the PANICKED state, and for most
>> cases it's going to be disastrous to put the guest to run again,
>
> Why will it? It will most likely just call halt a bit later.
I agree.
>> but I can understand that this is up user/mngt to decide this, not QEMU.
>
> I don't have a problem with this patch as such, so
>
> Acked-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst(a)redhat.com>
>
> though I'm still not really sure why do we
> want to block guest immediately on panic.
> Why not let it call halt a bit later?
To make sure the panic is detected, and action taken, in the host even
if management has crashed at the time.
I'm not sure I get the reference to management crashing - we just
need to maintain "panicked" state to make sure info is not lost ...
For example, even if you have
reboot-on-panic active, management has time to take a core dump of the
paused guest _before_ the reboot.
Paolo
but this sounds like a good reason to support synchronous panic events.
--
MST