Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC] libxl: set disk defaults in remove/destroy functions

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 2015-02-02 at 13:27 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-01-26 at 16:14 -0700, Jim Fehlig wrote:
> 
> Cc-ing the other toolstack maintainers, both of whom have more
> familiarity with this part of libxl than I.
> 
> > The attached patch is a hack I cooked up to fix one of the libvirt-TCK
> > Xen failures.  The test (200-disk-hotplug.t) attempts to hot add and
> > remove a disk from a running domain.  The add works fine, but remove
> > fails with
> > 
> > libxl: debug: libxl.c:3858:libxl_device_disk_remove: ao 0x7f9b9c0015a0:
> > create: how=(nil) callback=(nil) poller=
> > 0x7f9ba0004590
> > libxl: error: libxl.c:2399:libxl__device_from_disk: unrecognized disk
> > backend type: 0
> > 
> > The test does not define a backend type, in which case the libvirt libxl
> > driver allows libxl to choose an appropriate backend via
> > libxl__device_disk_set_backend().  The backend type is never set on a
> > remove operation, hence it fails with the above error.
> > 
> > I spent some time trying to figure out the best place to set backend
> > type on remove, but in the end could only come up with this hack.  It
> > wouldn't feel so gross if I could have simply added
> > 'libxl__device_##type##_setdefault(gc, type);' to the existing
> > DEFINE_DEVICE_REMOVE macro, but alas libxl__device_nic_setdefault() has
> > a different prototype than the other devices.

(I'm not sure this is the right apporach, but if it were...)

FWIW libxl__ functions aren't stable, so in theory this could be changed
to rationalise them all (e.g. by adding domid to the rest), but that
would be a bit churnful.

Perhaps better would be to add a new parameter to0 DEFINE_DEVICE_REMOVE
like extra_setdefault_args which is pasted in the appropriate place?

> > Better suggestions welcomed!  One I considered was fixing this in
> > libvirt.  But the Xen community suggested allowing libxl to choose a
> > suitable backend when not specified, so I think this recommendation
> > should be symmetrical in the add and remove operations.

I suppose on remove its not so much a case of choosing a suitable
backend as reflecting the actual current reality for that device. Which
suggests that libxl__device_from_disk ought to be figuring out the
actual backend somehow rather than being told it.

Ian.


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel