On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 11:36:31AM +0200, Ilias Stamatis wrote:
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 9:46 AM Erik Skultety <eskultet@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 10:10:34PM +0200, Ilias Stamatis wrote:
Ignore @source in the case of the test driver and return fixed private IPv4 addresses for all the interfaces defined in the domain.
Signed-off-by: Ilias Stamatis <stamatis.iliass@gmail.com> ---
The default config of the test driver has no guest interfaces defined, so this must be tested with a custom config.
Maybe it would be a good idea to add one or more guest interfaces in the default config. I could send an additional patch for this.
I agree and at the same time I think that patch and this one should be part of the same series.
Sure, I'll add that. One interface would be sufficient I suppose? How about the following?
<interface type='network'> <mac address='aa:bb:cc:dd:ee:ff'/> <source network='default' bridge='virbr0'/> <address type='pci' domain='0x0000' bus='0x00' slot='0x00' function='0x0'/>
Just a nitpick ^this would very likely not a be a valid endpoint PCI device address, as that would indicate a host bridge (on most systems), so I'd use some other slot number here ;).
</interface>
src/test/test_driver.c | 71 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 71 insertions(+)
diff --git a/src/test/test_driver.c b/src/test/test_driver.c index a4c17ef0df..3a81f51a88 100644 --- a/src/test/test_driver.c +++ b/src/test/test_driver.c @@ -3220,6 +3220,76 @@ static int testDomainBlockStats(virDomainPtr domain, return ret; }
+static int +testDomainInterfaceAddresses(virDomainPtr dom, + virDomainInterfacePtr **ifaces, + unsigned int source ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED, + unsigned int flags) +{ + size_t i; + size_t ifaces_count = 0; + int ret = -1; + char ipaddr[32]; + char macaddr[VIR_MAC_STRING_BUFLEN]; + virDomainObjPtr vm = NULL; + virDomainInterfacePtr iface = NULL; + virDomainInterfacePtr *ifaces_ret = NULL; + + virCheckFlags(0, -1); + + if (!(vm = testDomObjFromDomain(dom))) + goto cleanup; + + if (virDomainObjCheckActive(vm) < 0) + goto cleanup; + + if (VIR_ALLOC_N(ifaces_ret, vm->def->nnets) < 0) + goto cleanup; + + for (i = 0; i < vm->def->nnets; i++) { + if (VIR_ALLOC(iface) < 0) + goto cleanup; + + if (VIR_STRDUP(iface->name, vm->def->nets[i]->ifname) < 0) + goto cleanup; + + virMacAddrFormat(&(vm->def->nets[i]->mac), macaddr); + if (VIR_STRDUP(iface->hwaddr, macaddr) < 0) + goto cleanup; + + if (VIR_ALLOC(iface->addrs) < 0) + goto cleanup; + + iface->addrs[0].type = VIR_IP_ADDR_TYPE_IPV4; + iface->addrs[0].prefix = 24; + + sprintf(ipaddr, "192.168.0.%ld", 100 + (i % 155));
It's test driver do we expect to be dealing with that many interfaces? I think '100 + i' or even 'i + i' would be just fine, we don't need to overcomplicate it.
I agree in general, but I don't think it's really overcomplicated here, it's just 5 extra chars. :D Why not reply with results that make sense in all cases?
In the "one" instance specifically? :) I mean, sure, but strictly speaking anything over 155 ifaces would produce erroneous results just like 100+i would and moreover you need to compute the remainder each time for no particular reason, that's what I called "over-complicating" ;).
+ if (VIR_STRDUP(iface->addrs[0].addr, ipaddr) < 0) + goto cleanup;
How about using virAsprintf directly into iface->addrs[0].addr? (sprintf is also blacklisted by the syntax-check)
Aah, great! I wasn't aware of this function, I'll change it to use that.
Btw, how can I run this syntax-check you refer to or see which functions are blacklisted?
It's one of our make targets => make syntax-check, so when sending patches, we recommend using make check && make syntax-check before hitting send. Erik