Chris Lalancette wrote:
> 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.
Thanks for testing that, Chris.
I'll rebase and push in 8 or 10 hours.
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list