Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 2/2] qemuBuildMemPathStr: Forbid memoryBacking/access for non-numa case

On 12/15/2017 08:48 PM, John Ferlan wrote: > > > On 12/12/2017 08:36 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote: >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448149 >> >> If a domain has no numa nodes, that means we don't put any >> memory-backend-file onto the qemu command line. That in turn >> means we can't set access='shared'. Therefore, we should produce >> an error instead of ignoring the setting silently. >> >> Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn(a)redhat.com&gt; >> --- >> src/qemu/qemu_command.c | 9 +++ >> tests/qemuxml2argvdata/hugepages-memaccess3.xml | 87 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> tests/qemuxml2argvtest.c | 3 + >> 3 files changed, 99 insertions(+) >> create mode 100644 tests/qemuxml2argvdata/hugepages-memaccess3.xml >> >> diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_command.c b/src/qemu/qemu_command.c >> index 2dd50a214..dfc17ce34 100644 >> --- a/src/qemu/qemu_command.c >> +++ b/src/qemu/qemu_command.c >> @@ -7682,6 +7682,15 @@ qemuBuildMemPathStr(virQEMUDriverConfigPtr cfg, >> return -1; >> } >> >> + if (def->mem.access != VIR_DOMAIN_MEMORY_ACCESS_DEFAULT && >> + def->mem.access != VIR_DOMAIN_MEMORY_ACCESS_PRIVATE) { >> + virReportError(VIR_ERR_CONFIG_UNSUPPORTED, >> + _("memory access mode '%s' not supported " >> + "without guest numa node"), >> + virDomainMemoryAccessTypeToString(def->mem.access)); >> + return -1; >> + } >> + > > This works; however, why not move this and the virQEMUCapsGet check into > a qemu_domain qemuDomainDef*Memory*Validate type function? Thus > removing failure checks from qemu_command... I'm not quite sure which function you have in mind.

> > I suppose it's OK here, but I think better there. Still for the concept, > > Reviewed-by: John Ferlan <jferlan(a)redhat.com&gt; Thanks, I'll hold pushing these until we have clear consensus here. Michal