2010/6/11 Daniel P. Berrange <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 06:25:29PM +0200, Matthias Bolte wrote:
>> 2010/6/11 Daniel P. Berrange <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>> > On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 01:28:29AM +0200, Matthias Bolte wrote:
>> >> Report that libvirt was built without that driver instead of
>> >> trying to connect to a libvirtd, when we know that this is
>> >> going to fail.
>> >> ---
>> >>
>> >
>> > ACK, this looks fine to me. One day I'd like to change the way we pick
>> > the drivers during the open method, but that's faar too invasive for
>> > now.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Daniel
>> >
>>
>> Maybe something like having a scheme-to-driver mapping table would be
>> nice, instead of asking each driver.
>
> Yes, that's exactly what I'd think. In addition when compiling out drivers
> instead of not adding anything to the driver table, we could add a no-op
> driver that simply reports that the driver isn't available.
>
>
> Daniel
>
I started this patch like that. I added a minimal driver that does
exactly that and I edited virInitialize like this:
# ifdef WITH_ESX
if (esxRegister() == -1) return -1;
# else
if (disabledRegister("esx") == -1) return -1;
if (disabledRegister("gsx") == -1) return -1;
# endif
But I dropped it after I thought that I could not make this work with
driver modules. But as I think of it now again: I could just have
called disabledRegister in virDriverLoadModule when the requested
driver wasn't found. Damn, I should have give it a second thought
before pushing this patch. :(
My first approach wouldn't have touched the way do_open picks the
drivers, so it's not that invasive. It would just have put those
"disabled" entries in to the driver table.
Maybe I should recreate that disabled driver, just to see if I can
make it really working properly.
Any interest in that approach?
Matthias
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list