<tt>libvirt-cim-bounces@redhat.com wrote on 2008-09-11 04:46:16: > > > > > > I gave them some more thought.. adding an arbitrary sleep in a test > > > isn't really a good idea - because systems run at varying speeds, so you > > > can't guarantee how long you'll need to sleep. > > > > > > A better approach would be to poll to see if there are no guests... if > > > there are no guests defined, then run the test, otherwise keep polling. > > > You could poll for 10 seconds or so. So something like: > > > > > > timer_count = 10 > > > > > > if count < timer_count: > > > #Get list of defined/active guests on the system > > > #If no guests are defined > > > break > > > sleep(1) > > > > > > Does this sound reasonable? > > > > Agree with you. > > If there is still define guest on the system after waiting for > > 10 seconds, then shall we have to make the timer_count longer? > > > > The problem here is that it's possible the user has other defined guests > in the system. So we can't keep polling for there to be no guests. The > best we can do is poll for a given amount of time. If the system still > has guests on it after the timer is up, then we need to skip the test. > </tt> <tt> Done. Patch on the way.</tt> <tt> > -- > Kaitlin Rupert > IBM Linux Technology Center > kaitlin@linux.vnet.ibm.com > > _______________________________________________ > Libvirt-cim mailing list > Libvirt-cim@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvirt-cim </tt>