From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79B5AC433E1 for ; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 09:37:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5293422BEF for ; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 09:37:15 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=citrix.com header.i=@citrix.com header.b="fYMwKP8c" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727940AbgGTJhO (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Jul 2020 05:37:14 -0400 Received: from esa4.hc3370-68.iphmx.com ([216.71.155.144]:60760 "EHLO esa4.hc3370-68.iphmx.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727062AbgGTJhO (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Jul 2020 05:37:14 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=citrix.com; s=securemail; t=1595237833; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=nwPJa3NUFyEUiPP7p8oQoME8KchN1Curaq49nRiJSr0=; b=fYMwKP8cenGPoU7mH9agCOVNlbUNuqtl+b/h67ELLn2z49ebvGng8oJ2 3uqQwOJ0cjk33uoNIULdGigKi6PU3/ilTjaQ9JflnIuX7KWFwKDk4GxCi yGoIqY01MIY8rv4EVbQrwxaRWx3U5golWH8mIAx1jCiZ6uZMPx1PmzNdE 4=; Authentication-Results: esa4.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.i=none IronPort-SDR: 4hmgLSfnkocyYHfNLmECegraULYWfvgO+2ir3ZYwO5eOasBTEYVWmVfPwW4mzeVVL17AAtcZVd bUVOns9d+KznUSTWedAW/WhA4LDQ6fI22ZVr7E0i6W1qt7UqqwxosEHno3/M1gQyUdpcDOjoqF Nj70/QuhTm+JOMOwc9sysRtdWdhiTtL0p7pcoHDnQAPgaCsxfhMhr0r+0WqS9xxrS3GSrFbPO0 NyjgT8OXTOod2Cdp5jysswqlD0JX8QMphFc9cBJwZ90Kl5ucVrm3e0q6KBg1OKyPj5+tG+RRay t54= X-SBRS: 2.7 X-MesageID: 23586900 X-Ironport-Server: esa4.hc3370-68.iphmx.com X-Remote-IP: 162.221.158.21 X-Policy: $RELAYED X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.75,374,1589256000"; d="scan'208";a="23586900" Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 11:37:05 +0200 From: Roger Pau =?utf-8?B?TW9ubsOp?= To: Boris Ostrovsky CC: Anchal Agarwal , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/11] xen/manage: keep track of the on-going suspend mode Message-ID: <20200720093705.GG7191@Air-de-Roger> References: <20200702182136.GA3511@dev-dsk-anchalag-2a-9c2d1d96.us-west-2.amazon.com> <50298859-0d0e-6eb0-029b-30df2a4ecd63@oracle.com> <20200715204943.GB17938@dev-dsk-anchalag-2a-9c2d1d96.us-west-2.amazon.com> <0ca3c501-e69a-d2c9-a24c-f83afd4bdb8c@oracle.com> <20200717191009.GA3387@dev-dsk-anchalag-2a-9c2d1d96.us-west-2.amazon.com> <5464f384-d4b4-73f0-d39e-60ba9800d804@oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5464f384-d4b4-73f0-d39e-60ba9800d804@oracle.com> X-ClientProxiedBy: AMSPEX02CAS01.citrite.net (10.69.22.112) To AMSPEX02CL02.citrite.net (10.69.22.126) Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 09:47:04PM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > (Roger, question for you at the very end) > > On 7/17/20 3:10 PM, Anchal Agarwal wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 05:18:08PM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > >> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. > >> > >> > >> > >> On 7/15/20 4:49 PM, Anchal Agarwal wrote: > >>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 11:52:01AM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > >>>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 7/2/20 2:21 PM, Anchal Agarwal wrote: > >>>> And PVH dom0. > >>> That's another good use case to make it work with however, I still > >>> think that should be tested/worked upon separately as the feature itself > >>> (PVH Dom0) is very new. > >> > >> Same question here --- will this break PVH dom0? > >> > > I haven't tested it as a part of this series. Is that a blocker here? > > > I suspect dom0 will not do well now as far as hibernation goes, in which > case you are not breaking anything. > > > Roger? I sadly don't have any box ATM that supports hibernation where I could test it. We have hibernation support for PV dom0, so while I haven't done anything specific to support or test hibernation on PVH dom0 I would at least aim to not make this any worse, and hence the check should at least also fail for a PVH dom0? if (!xen_hvm_domain() || xen_initial_domain()) return -ENODEV; Ie: none of this should be applied to a PVH dom0, as it doesn't have PV devices and hence should follow the bare metal device suspend. Also I would contact the QubesOS guys, they rely heavily on the suspend feature for dom0, and that's something not currently tested by osstest so any breakages there go unnoticed. Thanks, Roger.