On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 06:19:52PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I also mentioned that you counting invocations of
> libxl__ao_cancellable_register is less than ideal because it is very
> coarse-grained.
Yes. A nice feature of counting calls to libxl__ao_cancellable_register
is that it is closely t
Euan Harris writes ("Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/29] libxl: Cancelling asynchronous
operations"):
> Yes, that would work, but an open loop approach like that can lead to
> frustratingly unreliable tests. I think it would be best to make
> the test aware of the state of the helper - or even in control o
On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 06:19:52PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> On the contrary, I think many long-running operations, such as suspend
> and migrations, involve multiple iterations of the libxl event loop.
> Actual suspend/migrate is done in a helper process; the main process
> is responsible for pr
Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH v2 00/29] libxl: Cancelling
asynchronous operations"):
> On Tue, 2015-02-10 at 20:09 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > This is v2 of my work-in-progress series to support cancellation of
> > long-running libxl operation
Euan Harris writes ("Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/29] libxl: Cancelling asynchronous
operations"):
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 04:10:35PM +, Euan Harris wrote:
> I think the most straightforward way to test the cancellation mechanism in
> LibXL will be to adapt the way we test similar functionality in x
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 04:10:35PM +, Euan Harris wrote:
> We had a chat about testing these changes, and integrating them into xenopsd.
> We agreed that we each had slightly different expectations of what we were
> going to do, and when. I think we came to the following major conclusio
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 12:08:04PM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > I wouldn't recommend testing it yet until I've at least smoke tested
> > it to see that things still work if you don't cancel them.
>
> Would review of the series be useful and/or appreciated at this stage?
>
> Perhaps the first ha
On Tue, 2015-02-10 at 20:09 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> This is v2 of my work-in-progress series to support cancellation of
> long-running libxl operations.
[...]
> I wouldn't recommend testing it yet until I've at least smoke tested
> it to see that things still work if you don't cancel them.
Wou
Euan Harris writes ("Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/29] libxl: Cancelling asynchronous
operations"):
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 08:09:47PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I have rebased this onto current staging. I have compiled it but
> > NOT EXECUTED IT AT ALL. Euan, I thought it would be useful to give
>
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 08:09:47PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I have rebased this onto current staging. I have compiled it but
> NOT EXECUTED IT AT ALL. Euan, I thought it would be useful to give
> you something you could start to work on building against.
>
> I wouldn't recommend testing
Ian Jackson writes ("[RFC PATCH v2 00/29] libxl: Cancelling asynchronous
operations"):
> This is v2 of my work-in-progress series to support cancellation of
> long-running libxl operations.
>
> There are many improvements since v1, but the basic structure remains
> the same and the external API r
This is v2 of my work-in-progress series to support cancellation of
long-running libxl operations.
There are many improvements since v1, but the basic structure remains
the same and the external API remains unchanged.
I have rebased this onto current staging. I have compiled it but
NOT EXECUTED
12 matches
Mail list logo
