On 11/29/2011 03:12 PM, Daniel Veillard wrote: > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 03:12:07AM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: >> This patchset adds a new API to put a host to a suspended state >> (Suspend-to-RAM, Suspend-to-Disk or Hybrid-Suspend) and setup a timed resume >> to get the host back online, from within libvirt. >> This uses the RTC wakeup mechanism to set up a timer alarm before suspending >> the host, so that in-band resume is facilitated by the firing of the RTC >> alarm, which wakes up the host. >> >> This patch applies on top of the Hybrid-Suspend patch posted in [1]. > [...] >> >> Srivatsa S. Bhat (4): >> Add a public API to invoke suspend/resume on the host >> Add the remote protocol implementation for virNodeSuspendForDuration >> Implement the core API to suspend/resume the host >> Add virsh command to initiate suspend on the host >> > > Okay I finally pushed this series. But all patches except 4/4 failed > to apply cleanly on git head, thay all also raised various "make > syntax-check" error, which I fixed in the standard way I think. > The main issue is that patch 3/4 made "make check" fail all virshtest > for some reason (maybe the restricted PATH) the call to > virNodeSuspendInit() in virInitialize() was failing, an well in that > case nothing work. So I changed virNodeSuspendInit: > - to not return -1 if virGetPMCapabilities() fails > - only log an error if virGetPMCapabilities() fails and the > effective user id is 0 > - initialize hostPMFeatures to 0 before checking > > This code should probably still be revisited, because IMHO: > - when run as non-root we should not expose suspend capabilities > that we may not be able to use as non-root (pm-suspend works > only as root for example, and pm-is-supported seems to work > differently as root or as non-root) > - the error log was getting in the way of the virshtest checks > and we should probably not log error as non root. > - I was tempted to not call virNodeSuspendInit() from virInitialize() > but I'm afraid the drivers code may rely on those data including > the lock being initialized. > > So my changes certainly need reviews, but the first version is commited > now. >
Thanks a lot! > Thanks, but in the future, please run "make check" and "make syntax-check" > on all commits before posting them to the list, > Very sorry, it was an oversight from my side, caused by an eagerness to quickly address all the review comments, to aid further reviews/pushing the patches before the freeze deadline. But in future, I will definitely remember to run all the sanity checks and only then post patches. My sincere apologies for all the trouble I caused because of that! -- Regards, Srivatsa S. Bhat IBM Linux Technology Center -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
