On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 16:54:16 +0300 Avi Kivity <a...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 08/08/2011 04:47 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > > > > > > Well, then, the user won't know something happened and will happily > > > resume the guest, like I outlined above. > > > > I think it makes sense to return an error in the monitor if the user > > tries to stop qemu when it's already stopped. Not sure if it will do what > > you > > think it should do, but we should always tell the user when we're unable to > > carry his/her orders. > > > > But it does make sense to me to not allow stopping twice. First because it > > doesn't make sense to stop something which is not moving and second because > > what else can stop the vm if it's already stopped? > > > > Maybe vm_stop() should return an error, but I think this goes beyond this > > series. > > > > This is why I suggested a reference count. In this case, we can always > stop the guest "twice", because we don't lost information when we resume. I could give it a try in the near future, as I really think it's independent from this series, but I still don't understand what can stop an already stopped VM besides the user. This is a real question, is it really possible? If only the user can do that, then the refcount is overkill as just returning an error will do it.
