On 3/28/19 10:34 AM, Ján Tomko wrote:
A marco for comparing string fields of the disk.
Polo'ed-by: Laine Stump <laine@laine.org> (seriously, though - s/marco/macro/ :-)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1601677
Signed-off-by: Ján Tomko <jtomko@redhat.com> --- src/qemu/qemu_domain.c | 13 +++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_domain.c b/src/qemu/qemu_domain.c index bb3a672d47..72e322d6a7 100644 --- a/src/qemu/qemu_domain.c +++ b/src/qemu/qemu_domain.c @@ -9322,6 +9322,18 @@ qemuDomainDiskChangeSupported(virDomainDiskDefPtr disk, } \ } while (0)
+#define CHECK_STREQ_NULLABLE(field, field_name) \ + do { \ + if (!disk->field) \ + break; \
So is a missing value in the updated XML equal to "no change"? Or Does a missing value actually mean "this should be un-set if it has been set to something"? (I'm asking this because in the case of MTU for <interface>, if the existing interface has an mtu set (even to 1500), and the updated XML has no MTU, we consider that a change (and don't allow it). Reviewed-by: Laine Stump <laine@laine.org> once the commit message typo is fixed, and if the meaning of "not specified" for a field in the update truly is meant to be "don't change" rather than "remove any previous setting of this field and return it to default".
+ if (STRNEQ_NULLABLE(disk->field, orig_disk->field)) { \ + virReportError(VIR_ERR_OPERATION_UNSUPPORTED, \ + _("cannot modify field '%s' of the disk"), \ + field_name); \ + return false; \ + } \ + } while (0) + CHECK_EQ(device, "device", false); CHECK_EQ(bus, "bus", false); if (STRNEQ(disk->dst, orig_disk->dst)) { @@ -9469,6 +9481,7 @@ qemuDomainDiskChangeSupported(virDomainDiskDefPtr disk, }
#undef CHECK_EQ +#undef CHECK_STREQ_NULLABLE
return true; }