On 07/16/2013 10:40 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 08:14:54AM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
>> On 07/15/2013 05:31 PM, Ján Tomko wrote:
>>> On 07/02/2013 11:35 AM, Guannan Ren wrote:
>>>> If one of backing files for disk source doesn't exist, the guest will not
>>>> be able to find and use the disk even though the disk still exists in
>>>> guest xml definition. So reporting an error make more sense.
>>>>
>>>> Adding virFileAccessibleAs() to check if the backing file described in
>>>> disk meta exist in real path. If not, report error. the uid and gid
>>>> arguments don't have so much meannings for F_OK, so give 0 for them.
>>>> ---
>>>> src/util/virstoragefile.c | 23 +++++++++++++++--------
>>>> tests/virstoragetest.c | 16 ++++++++--------
>>>> 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/src/util/virstoragefile.c b/src/util/virstoragefile.c
>>>> index 27aa4fe..cb61e5b 100644
>>>> --- a/src/util/virstoragefile.c
>>>> +++ b/src/util/virstoragefile.c
>>>
>>>> @@ -870,14 +877,10 @@ virStorageFileGetMetadataInternal(const char *path,
>>>> !!directory, backing,
>>>> &meta->directory,
>>>> &meta->backingStore) < 0) {
>>>> - /* the backing file is (currently) unavailable, treat this
>>>> - * file as standalone:
>>>> - * backingStoreRaw is kept to mark broken image chains */
>>>> - meta->backingStoreIsFile = false;
>>>> - backingFormat = VIR_STORAGE_FILE_NONE;
>>>> - VIR_WARN("Backing file '%s' of image '%s' is missing.",
>>>> - meta->backingStoreRaw, path);
>>>> -
>>>> + VIR_ERROR(_("Backing file '%s' of image '%s' is missing."),
>>>> + meta->backingStoreRaw, path);
>>>> + VIR_FREE(backing);
>>>> + goto cleanup;
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>> VIR_FREE(backing);
>>>
>>> This change means you won't be able to start the pool if one of the files is
>>> missing a backing file. I've forwarded a patch [1] from/for [2] that ignores
>>> missing files on pool start and there is a bug [3] requesting that we ignore
>>> other files as well. I feel like this is going in the other direction.
>>>
>>> Wouldn't it be enough to check for them on domain start-up and leave the pool
>>> running even if one of those volumes doesn't have an existing backing file?
>>>
>>
>> How about making it configurable for the pool? There are definitely
>> some users who want the pool to reflect actual info after pool-refresh.
>
> I don't think this needs to be configurable. The pool should show *every*
> single file, regardless of whether the file has a broken backing file.
> We shouldn't be trying to second guess what the user wants to do with a
> image with broken backing file. Just expose as much info as we have and
> let them deal with the problem.
>
I was thinking about the case that was mentioned in Jan's link to
bugzilla, where they wanted to keep even deleted volumes. Since I
disagree with that for normal pool, we could make it configurable for
such use-cases (although it looks more like invalid usage of our pools
in that BZ).
Martin
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list