On 10/01/2010 02:09 PM, Jiri Denemark wrote:
When a user calls to virDomain{Attach,Detach,Update}DeviceFlags() with
flags == VIR_DOMAIN_DEVICE_MODIFY_LIVE on an inactive guest running on
an old Xen hypervisor (such as RHEL-5) xend_internal driver reports:
Xend version does not support modifying persistent config
which is pretty confusing since no-one requested to modify persistent
config.
Hmm - given the recent discussion on vcpus (which is probably what made
you look at this, right?)...
---
src/xen/xend_internal.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------------
1 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/xen/xend_internal.c b/src/xen/xend_internal.c
index fce0233..1318bd4 100644
--- a/src/xen/xend_internal.c
+++ b/src/xen/xend_internal.c
@@ -3878,6 +3878,12 @@ xenDaemonAttachDeviceFlags(virDomainPtr domain, const char *xml,
priv = (xenUnifiedPrivatePtr) domain->conn->privateData;
if (domain->id< 0) {
+ /* Cannot modify live config if domain is inactive */
+ if (flags& VIR_DOMAIN_DEVICE_MODIFY_LIVE) {
+ virXendError(VIR_ERR_OPERATION_INVALID, "%s",
+ _("Cannot modify live config if domain is inactive"));
+ return -1;
+ }
Should we always error out if _LIVE and inactive, or should we
special-case _CONFIG|_LIVE by silently ignoring the _LIVE flag on
inactive domains?
--
Eric Blake eblake@xxxxxxxxxx +1-801-349-2682
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list