On 07/14/2015 04:13 PM, Josh Durgin wrote:
> On 07/14/2015 12:42 PM, John Ferlan wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 07/14/2015 04:15 AM, Wido den Hollander wrote:
>>> We used to look at the librbd code version and depending on that
>>> we would invoke rbd_create3() or rbd_create().
>>>
>>> Since librbd version 0.67.9 we can however tell RBD that it should
>>> create rbd format 2 images even if we invoke rbd_create().
>>>
>>> The>> less options we pass to librbd, the more we can lean on the sane
>>> defaults it uses.
>>>
>>> For rbd_create3() we had things like the stripe count and unit hardcoded
>>> in libvirt and that might cause problems down the road.
>
> Hardcoding the feature bits is even worse. I think this is the right
> approach.
>
OK - just trying to be sure... and since no one else spoke up yet,
seems the approach is fine.
...
>>> virStorageBackendRBDCreateImage(rados_ioctx_t io,
>>> char *name, long capacity)
>>> {
>>> int order = 0;
>>> -#if LIBRBD_VERSION_CODE > 260
>>> - uint64_t features = 3;
>>> - uint64_t stripe_count = 1;
>>> - uint64_t stripe_unit = 4194304;
>>> -
>>> - if (rbd_create3(io, name, capacity, features, &order,
>>> - stripe_unit, stripe_count) < 0) {
>>> -#else
>>> if (rbd_create(io, name, capacity, &order) < 0) {
>>> -#endif
This change fails make syntax-check due to unnecessary curly braces.
Before I push, the question I see a second issue...
The current code returns -1 regardless of error, which is then used in a
call to virReportSystemError(-r,...)... That means regardless of the
error you're returning EPERM which could throw someone off if something
other than PERM was returned from rbd_create
I can fix that as well by :
return rbd_create(io, name, capacity, &order);
FWIW: This reporting snafu was introduced by commit id '761491e' which
just took the return of virStorageBackendRBDCreateImage and used it as
the basis for the message generated.
John
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list