Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 1/2] storage: Alter check for default managed setting

On 07/18/2017 03:03 AM, Erik Skultety wrote: I think perhaps because it "bothered me" while testing the subsequent patch, I looked at the logic again and thought, how is this right... The myopia of the work didn't cause me to go backwards through history. So if I go back to the bz that added the feature (commit id '5530f248'): https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1160926 The idea is/was to set 'managed' when this code created the vHBA and not when it was already defined. IOW: If virVHBAGetHostByWWN returns @name, then "something" already exists so we're not using any of the @parent* fields (parent, parent_wwnn/wwpn, parent_fabric_name) in order to create the vHBA, thus we should leave the managed as is and return. Eventually, along came commit id '106930aaa' which altered the order of the createVport code such that this code no longer could ascertain this and the only way to "save" the vHBA is by using "no"; otherwise, we forced usage of "managed='yes'". So of course since this commit, we have way to know if we used an existing vHBA (or HBA as it turns out) or if we created one. And we've "essentially forced" the setting of "yes" which says delete the vHBA when we're done. Then as you point out in the reply to the next patch, commit id '08c0ea16f' changes the return value from a 0,-1 to name or NULL. This doesn't help us out at all in regards to whether we set managed and creates even more problems (damn these refactors, they always seem to mess something up ;-)). So while I appreciate the ACK - I think I have to SNACK this one and instead move the virVHBAGetHostByWWN check back into createVport. That also includes moving the checkParent code back. This way, we'll have a better handle on whether "something" exists. This would also fix the checkParent check to follow what commit id '79ab0935' did Fortunately (to a degree I suppose) "finding" an existing (real) vHBA for a provided adapter wwnn/wwpn is "less" of a norm as the whole purpose of all the parent* fields is because someone created a storage pool and wanted it to manage creating the vHBA as opposed to someone creating a vHBA themselves, then adding a storage pool for the sole purpose to have the LUN's available via storage pool domain XML rather than via direct access to the LUN's in non pool domain XML (if that makes sense). So while it "is" a bug, I'd say it's less likely (but not impossible) that someone will actually be using such a configuration still. This is a really, really long way to say I'm not sure I see value in creating a bz honestly. Thanks for taking me down memory lane ;-) John BTW: When all the above code was originally created, using the HBA for the wwnn/wwpn of the <adapter> for the vhba wasn't even considered. It was only someone created a vHBA via nodedev-create and that the wwnn/wwpn was a vHBA. Hence the followup patch which will make that check whether it was a vHBA or an HBA and cause failure based on that.