On 12/14/2017 12:15 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
On 12/13/2017 10:41 PM, Jim Fehlig wrote:
> A Xen domain0 is better described as a persistent domain. Mark it
> as such during intialization.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jim Fehlig <jfehlig(a)suse.com>
> ---
>
> I noticed this while debugging a libvirt-guests issue. The list_guests()
> function filters domain0 with
>
> echo "$list" | grep -v 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000
>
> If domain0 is the only item in $list, the grep returns 1, causing
> a failure of the stop operation when action is suspend. This
> patch fixes the libvirt-guests issue, but I can also send a patch
> to improve the filter if desired. E.g.
>
> echo "$list" | sed "s/00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000//g"
>
> src/libxl/libxl_driver.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/src/libxl/libxl_driver.c b/src/libxl/libxl_driver.c
> index 40328a6cb..79e29ce07 100644
> --- a/src/libxl/libxl_driver.c
> +++ b/src/libxl/libxl_driver.c
> @@ -609,6 +609,7 @@ libxlAddDom0(libxlDriverPrivatePtr driver)
>
> def = NULL;
>
> + vm->persistent = 1;
> virDomainObjSetState(vm, VIR_DOMAIN_RUNNING, VIR_DOMAIN_RUNNING_BOOTED);
> if (virDomainDefSetVcpusMax(vm->def, d_info.vcpu_max_id + 1,
driver->xmlopt))
> goto cleanup;
>
I think this is orthogonal to libvirt-guests fix. dom0 should be marked
as persistent because it is persistent. I mean, even though we don't
store its config anywhere, we can't really get rid of it (udefine &&
destroy).
Right, that's why I didn't mention libvirt-guests in the commit message. Is it
ok to push this patch and send another for the libvirt-guests improvement?
Regards,
Jim