On 01/11/2023 4:42 pm, Juergen Gross wrote: > On 01.11.23 17:38, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 01/11/2023 9:00 am, Juergen Gross wrote: >>> It might be perfectly fine not to have a control/shutdown Xenstore >>> node. If this is the case, don't crash, but just terminate the >>> shutdown thread after issuing a message that shutdown isn't available. >>> >>> In fini_shutdown() clearing the watch can result in an error now, in >>> case the early exit above was taken. Just ignore this error now. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <[email protected]> >> >> Which cases might we not have a control/shutdown node? > > Xenstore-stubdom. It should _never_ shutdown, and it isn't really under > control of Xen tools (other than being created). > >> I'm all for coping better with its absence, but it's not a piece of the >> Xen ABI which is optional. > > I'd like to differ here. See reasoning above.
If we're going to permit this configuration, then I think it needs an extension to xenstore-paths to make it officially optional. And I think it's reasonable to support, but I wouldn't go as far as saying "never". If you've cleaved the global xenstored in twain/trine/etc, then individual parts of it can shut down normally. ~Andrew
