[...]
>>
>> Secondary to that you've added a new error related to identical vcpus in
>> the parsing logic. Unfortunately that could make a domain disappear on a
>> libvirtd restart if for some reason it was already defined in that
>> manner. If there's a parsing error because two entries had identical
>> cpus, then there will be an error. Errors would cause a previously
>> OK/found domain to not be defined. So that type of check (now that the
>
> Sorry, I am not sure if I understand correctly. Are you talking about
> two domains(or VMs) with the same vcpus setting?
It's the:
+ } else {
+ virReportError(VIR_ERR_XML_ERROR, "%s",
+ _("Identical vcpus in cachetunes found"));
+ goto cleanup;
+ }
that was new... Consider what would happen before any of these changes
were merged if that condition was true.
So I found tests/genericxml2xmlindata/cachetune-colliding-tunes.xml and
did a little test... Before your changes, the test fails with "error:
XML error: Overlapping vcpus in cachetunes", but with your changes the
test fails with "error: XML error: Identical vcpus in cachetunes found".
So since both fail, that's good, no issue then. It was different which
is what drew my attention. In any case, just mention it in the commit
message that part of the change will "clarify" whether it's an overlap
or a redefinition.
John
[...]
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
