From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=51033 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PJ6cU-000765-D5
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 10:41:55 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>) id 1PJ6cT-0005LQ-9Z
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 10:41:54 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:3247)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>) id 1PJ6cT-0005LF-0I
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 10:41:53 -0500
Message-ID: <4CE54937.3060404@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 16:41:43 +0100
From: Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC][PATCH v4 09/18] virtagent: add va_shutdown RPC
References: <1289923320-5638-1-git-send-email-mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<1289923320-5638-10-git-send-email-mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<4CE53568.4000307@redhat.com> <4CE547BA.1030202@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <4CE547BA.1030202@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: abeekhof@redhat.com, ryanh@us.ibm.com, agl@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Michael Roth <mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 11/18/10 16:35, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 11/18/2010 08:17 AM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
>> On 11/16/10 17:01, Michael Roth wrote:
>>   
>>> RPC to initiate guest shutdown/reboot/powerdown
>>>      
>> Do we really need this? After all those events can be passed down via
>> ACPI?
>>    
> 
> Reboot can't be passed by ACPI.  This is why virDomainReboot is still
> not functional in KVM.  Every other hypervisor does something identical
> to this series.
> 
> And a hypervisor initiated shutdown ought to be treated differently than
> an ACPI shutdown.  Namely, it should correspond to an immediate shut
> down vs. prompting the user.
> 
> Not all OSes response to ACPI shutdown either FWIW.

Ok, fair enough.

I just would like to avoid duplicating functionality if we don't have to.

Cheers,
Jes