On 08/10/2015 09:17 PM, John Ferlan wrote:
On 08/10/2015 05:23 AM, Peter Krempa wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 17:06:31 +0800, Luyao Huang wrote:
>>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1251886
>>
>> We do not allow delete an iothread which id is 0 in
>> virDomainDelIOThread, but allow it in virDomainAddIOThread,
>> Also we will output an error when parse an iothread which id
>> is 0.
>>
>> Add a check for iothread_id in virDomainAddIOThread to fix
>> it.
> The limitation that iothread id shall not be 0 comes from the qemu
> implementation so I think that we could possibly want to have iothread
> id 0 in the future.
>
Sort of.. The initial implementation used 0 (zero) as a marker of sorts
for no iothreads, so 'iothread0' made no sense. At that time there was
no add/del a specific thread.
However, now that there are iothreadid's to manage the iothreads<N>
value, it perhaps makes less sense to restrict usage of 0 (zero) except
of course for historical purposes. There probably would need to be
checks in multiple places adjusted though in order to manage the
iothreadid's which 'assume' we start at 1 and count upwards when there
is no <iothread id="#"/> provided in the domain XML.
Oh, i see, that is why i cannot find any reason to forbid iothread0 in
qemu source code, thanks a lot for clearly explanation.
Indeed, if we allow 0 as a valid iothread id and start at 0 will need
some work to fix the possible issue happen on a guest with iothread
during update, IMHO: it worth to do that :)
Thanks a lot for your reply
John
Luyao
> I think the check should be done in the qemu driver.
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> --
> libvir-list mailing list
> libvir-list(a)redhat.com
>
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
>