On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 06:13:01PM -0700, Jim Fehlig wrote:
Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 03:58:30PM -0700, Jim Fehlig wrote:
>
>> Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 03:10:13PM -0700, Jim Fehlig wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jim Fehlig wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 01:58:02PM -0700, Jim Fehlig wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:43:15AM -0700, Jim Fehlig
wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It will not be possible to detach such device
later. Also improve
>>>>>>>>>> logging in such cases.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Marek Marczykowski-Górecki
<marmarek(a)invisiblethingslab.com>
>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>> src/libxl/libxl_driver.c | 41
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 2
deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/src/libxl/libxl_driver.c
b/src/libxl/libxl_driver.c
>>>>>>>>>> index ce3a99b..005cc96 100644
>>>>>>>>>> --- a/src/libxl/libxl_driver.c
>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/src/libxl/libxl_driver.c
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -2787,6 +2787,7 @@
libxlDomainAttachNetDevice(libxlDriverPrivatePtr driver,
>>>>>>>>>> int actualType;
>>>>>>>>>> libxl_device_nic nic;
>>>>>>>>>> int ret = -1;
>>>>>>>>>> + char mac[VIR_MAC_STRING_BUFLEN];
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> /* preallocate new slot for device */
>>>>>>>>>> if (VIR_REALLOC_N(vm->def->nets,
vm->def->nnets + 1) < 0)
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -2801,6 +2802,14 @@
libxlDomainAttachNetDevice(libxlDriverPrivatePtr driver,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> actualType =
virDomainNetGetActualType(net);
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> + /* -2 means "multiple matches" so
then fail also */
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No longer true after commit 2fbae1b2. I think you
just want to check if
>>>>>>>>> virDomainNetFindIdx() >= 0, meaning the def
already contains a net
>>>>>>>>> device with the same mac address.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But here the error is when the device *is* found, so the
opposite case
>>>>>>>> than already reported as an error by
virDomainNetFindIdx.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you find an idx >= 0, then the domain def already
contains a net
>>>>>>> device with the same mac address, right? In that case, you
report an
>>>>>>> error and return failure from libxlDomainAttachNetDevice().
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, but if I do not find one (idx == -1), I will proceed
with
>>>>>> (possibly successful) adding the device, while the error was
already
>>>>>> reported by virDomainNetFindIdx.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, right :-/.
>>>>>
>>>>> Another option: introduce virDomainHasNet() to detect if the domain
def
>>>>> already contains the net device.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> A better option would be to fix this in libxl, for the benefit of other
>>>> libxl apps.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Actually libxl has no problem with duplicated mac addresses, its libvirt
>>> that makes problem.
>>>
>> Yeah, it appears duplicate mac addresses are only valid if on different
>> PCI devices.
>>
>
> Is that true for libvirt generally (all drivers)?
>
>
>> Back to virDomainHasNet? :-) Or checking for the
>> duplicate directly in libxlDomainAttachNetDevice()?
>>
>
> What do you mean by "directly"? This is exactly what my patch did (until
> virDomainNetFindIdx stopped reporting duplicates).
>
I mean coding up the search for an existing mac directly in
libxlDomainAttachNetDevice(). E.g.
I see, IMO its better with (reusable...) virDomainHasNet.
static int
libxlDomainAttachNetDevice(libxlDriverPrivatePtr driver,
libxlDomainObjPrivatePtr priv,
virDomainObjPtr vm,
virDomainNetDefPtr net)
{
int actualType;
libxl_device_nic nic;
int ret = -1;
size_t i;
virDomainDefPtr def = vm->def;
for (i = 0; i < def->nnets; i++) {
if (virMacAddrCmp(&def->nets[i]->mac, &net->mac) == 0)
error;
}
...
}
Regards,
Jim
--
Best Regards,
Marek Marczykowski-Górecki
Invisible Things Lab
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?