On Mon, 2016-01-25 at 16:06 -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > To hopefully clarify what it meant. > > Signed-off-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.w...@oracle.com> > --- > tools/libxc/xc_resume.c | 7 +++++-- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/libxc/xc_resume.c b/tools/libxc/xc_resume.c > index 87d4324..19ba2a3 100644 > --- a/tools/libxc/xc_resume.c > +++ b/tools/libxc/xc_resume.c > @@ -248,9 +248,12 @@ out: > /* > * Resume execution of a domain after suspend shutdown. > * This can happen in one of two ways: > - * 1. Resume with special return code. > - * 2. Reset guest environment so it believes it is resumed in a new > + * 1. (fast=1) Resume with special return code (1) that the guest > + * gets from SCHEDOP_shutdown:SHUTDOWN_suspend.
"SCHEDOP_shutdown(SHUTDOWN_suspend)" looks more like the function call which this in effect is. I think I'd say "Resume the guest without resetting the domain environment. The guests's call to SCHEDOP_shutdown(SHUTDOWN_suspend) will return 1". (assuming that is true re resetting) > + * > + * 2. (fast=0) Reset guest environment so it believes it is resumed in a new > * domain context. with the above I would suggesting adding "The guests's call to SCHEDOP_shutdown(SHUTDOWN_suspend) will return 0". > + * > * (2) should be used only for guests which cannot handle the special > * new return code. (1) is always safe (but slower). Is this correct? I'd have said (2) was always safe but slow? And I would invert the first, that is to say that (1) should be used in preference with guests which support it. Ian. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
