From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Euan Harris Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/29] libxl: Cancelling asynchronous operations Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 17:44:42 +0100 Message-ID: <20150409164442.GI3099@citrix.com> References: <1423599016-32639-1-git-send-email-ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com> <20150218161035.GA4022@citrix.com> <20150407170842.GD3099@citrix.com> <21796.4536.722643.245763@mariner.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <21796.4536.722643.245763@mariner.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian Jackson Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, james.bulpin@citrix.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org 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 progress report handling, coordination, etc. 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 of it. That would allow us to wait for the helper to reach a particular state before killing it. Thanks, Euan