On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:23:09AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > On 04/15/2013 11:04 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 12:49:12PM -0400, John Ferlan wrote: > >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=906644 > >> > >> Added checks to both virsh suspend and virsh resume for the domain to be > >> in a the right state before trying the suspend/resume. Similar checks to > >> examples/domsuspend/suspend.c. > > > > IMHO this is just a pointless bug request. State checks don't > > belong in virsh for a start, since that makes it inherantly > > racey. While the drivers do check for whether the domain is > > running, they explicitly chose not to raise an error if the > > VM is already paused, when pause is executed & vica-verca > > I agree that doing it in virsh is too racy. If anything, we would need > to implement new virDomainSuspendFlags() and virDomainResumeFlags() to > let the user pass in a flag that controls whether or not they want > libvirtd to reject a no-op state change (we can't change the default in > libvirtd, for fear of breaking existing clients, but the only way to do > a non-racy non-default behavior is to add a flag which requires adding API).
I don't think that anyone cares about this in the real world, so IMHO the correct action is to CLOSED -> WONTFIX the bug report. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
