On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 06:56:52PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 21/08/2013 18:55, Daniel P. Berrange ha scritto:
> > On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 06:51:11PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> Il 21/08/2013 18:48, Daniel P. Berrange ha scritto:
> >>> No, is the right thing to be using for this from
>
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 06:51:11PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 21/08/2013 18:48, Daniel P. Berrange ha scritto:
> > No, is the right thing to be using for this from
> > libvirt's pov & I don't think we should invent something new.
> > The element has always been intended to represent
> > han
Il 21/08/2013 19:26, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
> This is a QEMU bug that you happened to be Cc'd on.
Michael, this is bullshit and you know. I know you're more intelligent
than this. Stop it, please.
Paolo
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 11:02:56AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 08/21/2013 10:51 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > Il 21/08/2013 18:48, Daniel P. Berrange ha scritto:
> >> No, is the right thing to be using for this from
> >> libvirt's pov & I don't think we should invent something new.
> >> The elem
Il 21/08/2013 18:55, Daniel P. Berrange ha scritto:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 06:51:11PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Il 21/08/2013 18:48, Daniel P. Berrange ha scritto:
>>> No, is the right thing to be using for this from
>>> libvirt's pov & I don't think we should invent something new.
>>> The
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Il 21/08/2013 19:10, Eric Blake ha scritto:
> On 08/21/2013 10:56 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> eg it is valid to have present in the XML at all
>>> times, even if there's no pvpanic device present. That simply
>>> means the actions will never be tri
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Il 21/08/2013 19:02, Eric Blake ha scritto:
> So, this boils down to a question of what SHOULD the valid states
> for be? Generically, we want
> destroy to not invalidate a guest, but also to
> not instantiate a pvpanic device; since that covers the
On 08/21/2013 10:56 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> eg it is valid to have present in the XML at all
>> times, even if there's no pvpanic device present. That simply
>> means the actions will never be triggered.
>
> So are you suggesting to add a element to ? That
> may be fine, but it doesn't seem
On 08/21/2013 10:51 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 21/08/2013 18:48, Daniel P. Berrange ha scritto:
>> No, is the right thing to be using for this from
>> libvirt's pov & I don't think we should invent something new.
>> The element has always been intended to represent
>> handling of guest panics,
Il 21/08/2013 18:48, Daniel P. Berrange ha scritto:
> No, is the right thing to be using for this from
> libvirt's pov & I don't think we should invent something new.
> The element has always been intended to represent
> handling of guest panics, not qemu internal errors.
Actually for Xen HVM gu
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 06:43:13PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> The pvpanic mess is even bigger than anticipated. Let's fix the monitor's
> behavior (patch 1), get rid of all traces that the broken pvpanic existed
> (patch 2), and give it a new name so that libvirt can detect a design
> that work
11 matches
Mail list logo
