On 04/28/2010 11:43 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Chris Lalancette wrote:
>> On 04/27/2010 04:40 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>>> Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 06:45:16PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
>>>>> I ran clang on the very latest and it spotted this problem:
>>>>> >From qemu_driver.c, around line 11100,
>>>>>
>>>>> else {
>>>>> /* qemu is a little funny with running guests and the restoration
>>>>> * of snapshots. If the snapshot was taken online,
>>>>> * then after a "loadvm" monitor command, the VM is set running
>>>>> * again. If the snapshot was taken offline, then after a "loadvm"
>>>>> * monitor command the VM is left paused. Unpausing it leads to
>>>>> * the memory state *before* the loadvm with the disk *after* the
>>>>> * loadvm, which obviously is bound to corrupt something.
>>>>> * Therefore we destroy the domain and set it to "off" in this case.
>>>>> */
>>>>>
>>>>> if (virDomainObjIsActive(vm)) {
>>>>> qemudShutdownVMDaemon(driver, vm);
>>>>> event = virDomainEventNewFromObj(vm,
>>>>> VIR_DOMAIN_EVENT_STOPPED,
>>>>> VIR_DOMAIN_EVENT_STOPPED_FROM_SNAPSHOT);
>>>>> if (!vm->persistent) {
>>>>> if (qemuDomainObjEndJob(vm) > 0)
>>>>> virDomainRemoveInactive(&driver->domains, vm);
>>>>> vm = NULL;
>>>>
>>>> This needs to add 'goto endjob' or possibly 'goto cleanup'
>>>
>>> No point in endjob, since it does nothing when vm == NULL.
>>>
>>> Here's a tentative patch for that and another, similar problem
>>> (haven't even compiled it or run it through clang, but have to run).
>>> Will follow up tomorrow.
>>
>> Yeah, this looks reasonable and is what I was going to submit. It
>> would be good to give a test first, though.
>
> Can any of you easily test it?
> I can't right now.
Yep, this works fine with transient domains and snapshotting.
ACK
--
Chris Lalancette
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list