Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 04/15] Code to return interface name or pci_addr of the VF in actualDevice

On 08/14/2012 06:36 AM, Laine Stump wrote: > On 08/10/2012 12:23 PM, Shradha Shah wrote: >> The network pool should be able to keep track of both, network device >> names nad PCI addresses, and return the appropriate one in the actualDevice >> when networkAllocateActualDevice is called. >> >> Signed-off-by: Shradha Shah <sshah(a)solarflare.com&gt; >> --- >> src/network/bridge_driver.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ >> src/util/virnetdev.c | 25 ++++++++++++------------- >> src/util/virnetdev.h | 4 +++- >> 3 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/src/network/bridge_driver.c b/src/network/bridge_driver.c >> index df3cc25..602e17d 100644 >> --- a/src/network/bridge_driver.c >> +++ b/src/network/bridge_driver.c >> @@ -59,6 +59,7 @@ >> #include "dnsmasq.h" >> #include "configmake.h" >> #include "virnetdev.h" >> +#include "pci.h" >> #include "virnetdevbridge.h" >> #include "virnetdevtap.h" >> >> @@ -2737,10 +2738,11 @@ static int >> networkCreateInterfacePool(virNetworkDefPtr netdef) { >> unsigned int num_virt_fns = 0; >> char **vfname = NULL; >> + struct pci_config_address **virt_fns; >> int ret = -1, ii = 0; >> >> if ((virNetDevGetVirtualFunctions(netdef->forwardPfs->dev, >> - &vfname, &num_virt_fns)) < 0) { >> + &vfname, &virt_fns, &num_virt_fns)) < 0) { >> virReportError(VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR, >> _("Could not get Virtual functions on %s"), >> netdef->forwardPfs->dev); >> @@ -2762,19 +2764,38 @@ networkCreateInterfacePool(virNetworkDefPtr netdef) { >> netdef->nForwardIfs = num_virt_fns; >> >> for (ii = 0; ii < netdef->nForwardIfs; ii++) { >> - netdef->forwardIfs[ii].device.dev = strdup(vfname[ii]); >> - if (!netdef->forwardIfs[ii].device.dev) { >> - virReportOOMError(); >> - goto finish; > To be pure in the separation of patches, the following if else should be > removed from this patch, with just the contents of the "if" clause here. > Then the if else + body of the else should be added in the next patch. > > (And at any rate, the if() condition is incorrect here - really that > part should happen for all forwardTypes except HOSTDEV (BRIDGE, PRIVATE, > and VEPA also require netdev names.) I did not include the BRIDGE, PRIVATE and VEPA cases here because the networkCreateInterfacePool function is not called in those cases. Should I still include the conditions for BRIDGE, PRIVATE and VEPA?