Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] qemu: Support rbd namespace attribute

On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 11:09 PM Jason Dillaman <jdillama(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 10:52 AM Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 10:19:59PM +0800, Han Han wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 8:01 PM Jason Dillaman <jdillama(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 5:50 AM Han Han <hhan(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Diff from v3: > > > > > - add the check for capability of rbd namespace > > > > > - rename the item of rbd namespace in disk source struct > > > > > - combine the commit of doc into the commit of patch > > > > > - remove the code for -drive > > > > > > > > > > gitlab branch: > > > > > https://gitlab.com/hhan2/libvirt/-/commits/rbd-namespace-v4 > > > > > > > > > > Han Han (4): > > > > > qemu_capabilities: Add QEMU_CAPS_RBD_NAMESPACE > > > > > conf: Support to parse rbd namespace attribute > > > > > qemu: Implement rbd namespace attribute > > > > > news: qemu: Support rbd namespace > > > > > > > > > > NEWS.rst | 6 +++ > > > > > docs/formatdomain.rst | 5 ++- > > > > > docs/schemas/domaincommon.rng | 3 ++ > > > > > src/conf/domain_conf.c | 4 ++ > > > > > src/qemu/qemu_block.c | 1 + > > > > > src/qemu/qemu_capabilities.c | 4 ++ > > > > > src/qemu/qemu_capabilities.h | 3 ++ > > > > > src/qemu/qemu_domain.c | 8 ++++ > > > > > src/util/virstoragefile.h | 1 + > > > > > .../caps_5.0.0.aarch64.xml | 1 + > > > > > .../qemucapabilitiesdata/caps_5.0.0.ppc64.xml | 1 + > > > > > .../caps_5.0.0.riscv64.xml | 1 + > > > > > .../caps_5.0.0.x86_64.xml | 1 + > > > > > .../caps_5.1.0.x86_64.xml | 1 + > > > > > ...k-network-rbd-namespace.x86_64-latest.args | 41 +++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > .../disk-network-rbd-namespace.xml | 33 +++++++++++++++ > > > > > tests/qemuxml2argvtest.c | 1 + > > > > > ...sk-network-rbd-namespace.x86_64-latest.xml | 41 +++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > tests/qemuxml2xmltest.c | 1 + > > > > > 19 files changed, 156 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > create mode 100644 > > > > tests/qemuxml2argvdata/disk-network-rbd-namespace.x86_64-latest.args > > > > > create mode 100644 tests/qemuxml2argvdata/disk-network-rbd-namespace.xml > > > > > create mode 100644https://www.spinics.net/linux/fedora/libvir/msg201067.html > > > > tests/qemuxml2xmloutdata/disk-network-rbd-namespace.x86_64-latest.xml > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > 2.27.0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hopefully you still plan to add a "pool" attribute in a future series > > > > to help split-up the overloaded "pool/image" name attribute. > > > > > > > >From my opinions, I think it's ok to keep "pool/image" in the name > > > attribute if the meaning of this attribute > > > is clarified in libvirt docs. > > > Currently I have no plan to split the "pool/image". > > > The problem is that having separate "<pool>/<image>" and "<pool-name>" <pool-name> ? I am confused here. Do you mean the pool-namespace?

> > attributes is semi-nonsensicle. At that point, you might as well just I think the only separated namespace is sensible here. Because there are 3 ways to express the rbd image path with namespace:

1. <pool>/<namespace>/<image> e.g: the rbd info comand and the qemu-img comand with legacy rbd path: ➜ ~ rbd -c ~/.ceph/ceph.conf -k ~/.ceph/ceph.client.admin.keyring info rbd/hhan/1 rbd image '1': size 100 MiB in 25 objects

... ➜ ~ qemu-img info rbd:rbd/hhan/1:conf=/home/hhan/.ceph/ceph.conf:id=admin:key=XXXXXXX image: json:{"driver": "raw", "file": {"pool": "rbd", "image": "1", "conf": "/home/hhan/.ceph/ceph.conf", "driver": "rbd", "user": "admin"}} file format: raw ... Note that the missing namespace attribute in image json is caused by https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1821528 2. only separated namespace: <pool>/><image> and namespace attribute or option e.g: the rbd command with namespace option ➜ ~ rbd -c ~/.ceph/ceph.conf -k ~/.ceph/ceph.client.admin.keyring info rbd/1 --namespace hhan rbd image '1': size 100 MiB in 25 objects order 22 (4 MiB objects) ... 3. separated pool, namespace, image e.g: qemu blockdev options of rbd: https://github.com/qemu/qemu/blob/30aa19446d82358a30eac3b556b4d6641e00b7c... ➜ ~ qemu-img info 'json:{"driver": "raw", "file": {"pool": "rbd", "image": "1", "conf": "/home/hhan/.ceph/ceph.conf", "driver": "rbd", "user": "admin", "namespace":"hhan"}}' image: json:{"driver": "raw", "file": {"pool": "rbd", "image": "1", "conf": "/home/hhan/.ceph/ceph.conf", "driver": "rbd", "user": "admin"}} file format: raw ... From these precedents, I think it is no problem to use the 2nd pattern in libvirt XML. I reject the 1st pattern because of compat issues. Suppose the 1st pattern is used, it will cause problems in the following case. Since rbd allows the image name contains '/'

➜ ~ rbd -c ~/.ceph/ceph.conf -k ~/.ceph/ceph.client.admin.keyring -p rbd ls attach-new copy hhan/2 If I used 'hhan/2' image in libvirt XML at the previous libvirt and then I updated libvirt to the version support 1st pattern, the new libvirt parse the name='rbd/hhan/2' as pool 'rbd', namespace 'hhan', image '2',instead of the pool 'rbd', image 'hhan/2', default namespace. For the 3rd pattern, separating all the attributes, the xml will look like <source protocol="rbd" pool="POOL" image="IMG" namespace="NS"> However it cannot replace the old attribute name='<pool>/<image>' because of the compatibility. What about keeping the old attribute the adapting this new pattern? Well, it looks weird only rbd protocol adapts this new pattern because all the network protocols in libvirt use the old xml pattern <source protocol="PROTO" name="XX"> (seeing the examples in https://libvirt.org/formatdomain.html#hard-drives-floppy-disks-cdroms) How about adapting this new pattern to all the network protocols? Considering the effort and the benifits of that, I think it is not worthwhile. > drop the "pool_namespace" attribute" and parse the image name just > like the rest of Ceph/RBD code does as > "[<pool-name>/[<pool_namespace>/]]<image-name>". Why should libvirt > invent its own custom way to describe the image location? > > See this thread here [1] from back in April where you said you would > split it out. > Yes. The above is why I changed my mind and decided to use the only separated attribute namespace. > > > That would create back compat issues too, so I can't see us splitting > > that. > > Yes, I understand the backwards compatibility concerns so you would > need to continue to support "<pool>/<image>", but you could at least > force the new format if a "<pool-namespace>" was specified. > > > > > Regards, > > Daniel > > -- > > |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| > > |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| > > |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| > > > > [1] https://www.spinics.net/linux/fedora/libvir/msg201067.html > > -- > Jason > -- Best regards, ----------------------------------- Han Han Senior Quality Engineer Redhat. Email: hhan(a)redhat.com Phone: +861065339333