From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org Tue Apr 23 03:56:16 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51E22158CDFC for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 03:56:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (mailman.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::50:5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9E088D508 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 03:56:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 97ABE158CDFB; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 03:56:15 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: ports-bugs@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8526E158CDFA for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 03:56:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org (mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 213688D507 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 03:56:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56E4F7B4F for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 03:56:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x3N3uElD051220 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 03:56:14 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id x3N3uErW051219 for ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 03:56:14 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 237479] sysutils/vm-bhyve: need a more robust "vm stopall" Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 03:56:14 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Ports & Packages X-Bugzilla-Component: Individual Port(s) X-Bugzilla-Version: Latest X-Bugzilla-Keywords: bhyve, feature X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: rgrimes@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Status: New X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: maintainer-feedback? X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 03:56:16 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D237479 Rodney W. Grimes changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rgrimes@FreeBSD.org --- Comment #1 from Rodney W. Grimes --- (In reply to Victor Sudakov from comment #0) I would like to see some enhancements in a few aspects of this request, for= one the idea of an ordered shutdown of the vm's given a list, but not a reverse list of /etc/rc.conf vm_list would be useful. ESXi does this, but they get= it wrong in that the list is infact just the reverse of the startup, and that = has many issues. I see good use for the "kill them with ACPI shutdown, then wait N seconds, = then reap them with a harder signal" as useful. I would also like to understand why we repeat the killall that is there now. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=