Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 1/4] Convert the remote driver to new RPC client APIs

On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 02:49:37PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > On 06/27/2011 02:08 PM, Eric Blake wrote: > >> @@ -874,26 +646,14 @@ doRemoteOpen (virConnectPtr conn, > >> /* Now try and find out what URI the daemon used */ > >> if (conn->uri == NULL) { > >> remote_get_uri_ret uriret; > >> - int urierr; > >> > >> + VIR_DEBUG("Trying to query remote URI"); > >> memset (&uriret, 0, sizeof uriret); > >> - urierr = call (conn, priv, > >> - REMOTE_CALL_IN_OPEN | REMOTE_CALL_QUIET_MISSING_RPC, > >> - REMOTE_PROC_GET_URI, > >> - (xdrproc_t) xdr_void, (char *) NULL, > >> - (xdrproc_t) xdr_remote_get_uri_ret, (char *) &uriret); > >> - if (urierr == -2) { > >> - /* Should not really happen, since we only probe local libvirtd's, > >> - & the library should always match the daemon. Only case is post > >> - RPM upgrade where an old daemon instance is still running with > >> - new client. Too bad. It is not worth the hassle to fix this */ > >> - remoteError(VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR, "%s", > >> - _("unable to auto-detect URI")); > >> - goto failed; > >> - } > >> - if (urierr == -1) { > >> + if (call (conn, priv, 0, > >> + REMOTE_PROC_GET_URI, > > Is the loss of REMOTE_CALL_QUIET_MISSING_RPC going to make this new code > noisy when talking to an (extremely) old remote client? Or is the > assumption that the deleted comment still applies, and the only reason > we were using the QUIET_MISSING_RPC call would be to silence a one-time > failure upon a libvirtd upgrade, but where we can assume that it is no > longer a practical concern. Yes, this is a mistake. There were two places using REMOTE_CALL_QUIET_MISSING_RPC, this and the authentication routines. In the latter I added err = call (conn, priv, 0, REMOTE_PROC_AUTH_LIST, (xdrproc_t) xdr_void, (char *) NULL, (xdrproc_t) xdr_remote_auth_list_ret, (char *) &ret); if (err < 0) { virErrorPtr verr = virGetLastError(); if (verr && verr->code == VIR_ERR_NO_SUPPORT) { /* Missing RPC - old server - ignore */ virResetLastError(); return 0; } return -1; } And I should have done the same with the URI call too. I'll add a note to explicitly test compatibility against an old server.