On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 10:21:16AM -0700, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 11/12/2010 09:22 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > The XML docs describe a 'port' attribute for the
> > storage source <host> element, but the parser never
> > handled it.
> >
> > * docs/schemas/storagepool.rng: Define port attribute
> > * src/conf/storage_conf.c: Add missing parsing/formatting
> > of host port number
> > * src/conf/storage_conf.h: Remove bogus/unused 'protocol' field
> > ---
> > docs/schemas/storagepool.rng | 5 +++++
>
> Missing corresponding docs/formatstorage.html.in change.
As per the commit message, this is already documented, but not
implemented !
> > diff --git a/docs/schemas/storagepool.rng b/docs/schemas/storagepool.rng
> > index 54eb802..8f067f3 100644
> > --- a/docs/schemas/storagepool.rng
> > +++ b/docs/schemas/storagepool.rng
> > @@ -186,6 +186,11 @@
> > <attribute name='name'>
> > <text/>
> > </attribute>
> > + <optional>
> > + <attribute name='port'>
> > + <text/>
>
> Is text really appropriate, when...
I guess it should reference a port number
>
> > @@ -423,6 +424,17 @@ virStoragePoolDefParseSource(xmlXPathContextPtr ctxt,
> > }
> >
> > source->host.name = virXPathString("string(./host/@name)", ctxt);
> > + port = virXPathString("string(./host/@port)", ctxt);
> > + if (port) {
> > + if (virStrToLong_i(port, NULL, 10, &source->host.port) < 0) {
>
> it looks like you insist on an integer instead? For that matter, should
> you do a range check that the port is < 0x10000?
The range check gets done eventually, at least by the kernel, so I'm
not too bothered about that.
Daniel
--
|: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://deltacloud.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list