On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 at 16:48, David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > I have rewritten the documentation section to make it more explicit > > that the reset might not happen. I would appreciate feedback if some > > part still needs some care or if it is clear now. > > > > If the machine supports waking up from a suspended state and needs to > > reset its devices during wake-up (from ``MachineClass::wakeup()`` > > method), this reset type should be used for such a request. Devices > > can utilize this reset type to differentiate the reset requested > > during machine wake-up from other reset requests. For example, a > > virtio-mem device must not unplug its memory blocks during wake-up as > > the contents of the guest RAM would get lost. However, this reset type > > should not be used for wake-up detection, as not every machine type > > issues a device reset request during wake-up. > > Sounds good to me. > > I'd probably generalize the virtio-mem bit to: > > "For example, RAM content must not be lost during wake-up, and memory > devices like virtio-mem that provide additional RAM must not reset such > state during wake-ups, but might do so during cold resets." > > > @Peter, WDYT?
Yep, seems good to me: I think it's clear about when this reset type happens and what you can/can't expect from it. Minor grammar nit: should be "from the ``MachineClass::wakeup()`` method". -- PMM
