On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 05:58:10PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 25.10.2022 17:23, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 08:48:21AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > I wasn't sure about moving arch_domain_soft_reset() as a whole, but > yes, if that wouldn't cause other interaction issues this might be > an option. > > > In any case it's unlikely for a domain that was attempting a soft > > reset to survive the hypervisor rejecting the operation, so it doesn't > > matter much whether the domain is crashed by Xen or left as-is I would > > think. > > I'm sorry, I don't think I understand what you're saying here. For > PV I'd very much expect the guest to survive; it may of course then > be crashed or destroyed by a further tool stack operation.
I was expecting a domain that goes to the length of preparing for a soft reset operation to either perform such soft reset, or die as a result (and perform a non-soft reset), as recovering into the previous state won't be feasible. But maybe I'm wrong. Thanks, Roger.
