On 12/13/2012 12:05 PM, Osier Yang wrote:
> "virGetDevice{Major,Minor}" could be used across the sources,
> but it doesn't relate with this series, and could be done later.
>
> * src/util/util.h: (Declare virGetDevice{Major,Minor}, and
You generally want both values in one go; calling stat() twice because
you have two functions is not only a waste, but a racy window (if
someone is modifying the pathname in the meantime).
> +static char *
> +virGetUnprivSGIOSysfsPath(const char *path)
> +{
> + int major, minor;
> + char *sysfs_path = NULL;
> +
> + if ((major = virGetDeviceMajor(path)) < 0) {
> + virReportSystemError(-major,
> + _("Unable to get major number of device '%s'"),
> + path);
> + return NULL;
> + }
> +
> + if ((minor = virGetDeviceMinor(path)) < 0) {
> + virReportSystemError(-minor,
> + _("Unable to get minor number of device '%s'"),
> + path);
> + return NULL;
> + }
> +
> + if (virAsprintf(&sysfs_path, "/sys/dev/block/%d:%d/queue/unpriv_sgio",
> + major, minor) < 0) {
This is hard-coded to probe the actual kernel. If you instead make it
use a configurable prefix, then we could default to the kernel path, but
also allow our testsuite to pass in a prefix from the testsuite, so that
we can test this functionality even on kernels that don't support the
feature (similar to how we have tests/nodeinfodata for faked cpu and
node information). I'm not yet sure whether we'll need to fake this
information in any of our tests, but it's food for thought.
> +int
> +virSetDeviceUnprivSGIO(const char *path,
> + int unpriv_sgio)
Is this value only ever going to be 0 or 1? If so, a bool might be more
appropriate.
> +{
> + char *sysfs_path = NULL;
> + char *val = NULL;
> + int ret = -1;
> + int rc = -1;
> +
> + if (!(sysfs_path = virGetUnprivSGIOSysfsPath(path)))
> + return -1;
> +
> + if (!virFileExists(sysfs_path)) {
> + virReportError(VIR_ERR_OPERATION_INVALID, "%s",
> + _("unpriv_sgio is not supported by this kernel"));
> + goto cleanup;
> + }
> +
> + if (virAsprintf(&val, "%d", unpriv_sgio) < 0) {
If indeed this is bool, then you could avoid the virAsprintf,
> + virReportOOMError();
> + goto cleanup;
> + }
> +
> + if ((rc = virFileWriteStr(sysfs_path, val, 0)) < 0) {
and instead write a single '0' or '1' with less malloc pressure.
> + virReportSystemError(-rc, _("failed to set %s"), sysfs_path);
> + goto cleanup;
> + }
> +
> + ret = 0;
> +cleanup:
> + VIR_FREE(sysfs_path);
> + VIR_FREE(val);
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +int
> +virGetDeviceUnprivSGIO(const char *path,
> + int *unpriv_sgio)
Again, to we expect the kernel to ever return more than 0 or 1? Would
this interface be any simpler as:
/* -1 for error, 0 for off, 1 for on */
int virGetDeviceUnprivSGIO(const char *path)
--
Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list