Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 07:40:14PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 10:42:41AM -0700, Jim Fehlig wrote:
>>
>>> Implementation of public API for virDomain{Attach,Detach}DeviceFlags.
>>> ---
>>> src/libvirt.c | 106 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>>> 1 files changed, 98 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/src/libvirt.c b/src/libvirt.c
>>> index 1145561..77f76bc 100644
>>> --- a/src/libvirt.c
>>> +++ b/src/libvirt.c
>>> @@ -5129,7 +5129,6 @@ error:
>>> int
>>> virDomainAttachDevice(virDomainPtr domain, const char *xml)
>>> {
>>> - virConnectPtr conn;
>>> DEBUG("domain=%p, xml=%s", domain, xml);
>>>
>>> virResetLastError();
>>> @@ -5147,17 +5146,63 @@ virDomainAttachDevice(virDomainPtr domain, const char *xml)
>>> virLibDomainError(domain, VIR_ERR_OPERATION_INVALID, __FUNCTION__);
>>> goto error;
>>> }
>>> +
>>> + return virDomainAttachDeviceFlags(domain, xml,
>>> + VIR_DOMAIN_DEVICE_MODIFY_LIVE);
>>> +
>>> +error:
>>> + virDispatchError(domain->conn);
>>> + return -1;
>>> +}
>>>
>> This looks safe, but there's a subtle problem with changing the existing
>> virDomainAttachDevice() entry point to call virDomainAttachDeviceFlags().
>> It will break compatability with old libvirtd, even though the old
>> libvirtd supports the virDomainAttachDevice() code.
Ah, yes - good catch. Thanks.
>> So we need to keep
>> the distinct paths in the public API & driver definitions. The eventual
>> low level hypervisor drivers can of course just turn their existing
>> impl into a thin wrapper to the new method..
>>
>
> There's one other option actually - we could put compatability code in
> the remote driver client instead. Either, make it always invoke the old
> RPC call if flags == VIR_DOMAIN_DEVICE_MODIFY_LIVE, or have it invoke
> the new RPC call & fallback to the old RPC call if it gets an error
> indicating the new one doesn't exist.
>
Do you prefer the latter option? After a quick look, I didn't spot any
existing compatibility code in the remote driver client. The first
option might be slightly better wrt maintenance.
Thanks,
Jim
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list