Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/3] deal with guest panicked event

[Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>]

On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:40:45 +0100
"Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 09:35:04AM -0300, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 14:55:37 +0800
> > Wen Congyang <wency@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > >> +static void panicked_perform_action(void)
> > > >> +{
> > > >> +    switch(panicked_action) {
> > > >> +    case PANICKED_REPORT:
> > > >> +        panicked_mon_event("report");
> > > >> +        break;
> > > >> +
> > > >> +    case PANICKED_PAUSE:
> > > >> +        panicked_mon_event("pause");
> > > >> +        vm_stop(RUN_STATE_GUEST_PANICKED);
> > > >> +        break;
> > > >> +
> > > >> +    case PANICKED_QUIT:
> > > >> +        panicked_mon_event("quit");
> > > >> +        exit(0);
> > > >> +        break;
> > > >> +    }
> > > > 
> > > > Having the data argument is not needed/wanted. The mngt app can guess it if it
> > > > needs to know it, but I think it doesn't want to.
> > > 
> > > Libvirt will do something when the kernel is panicked, so it should know the action
> > > in qemu side.
> > 
> > But the action will be set by libvirt itself, no?
> 
> Sure, but the whole world isn't libvirt. If the process listening to the
> monitor is not the same as the process which launched the VM, then I
> think including the action is worthwhile. Besides, the way Wen has done
> this is identical to what we already do with QEVENT_WATCHDOG and I think
> it is desirable to keep consistency here.

That's right, I had forgotten about the WATCHDOG event. Maybe it would
make more sense to have this info in a query- command though, specially if
we plan to have a command to change that setting.

But I won't oppose having it in the event.