Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 05/11] conf: Validate VIR_DOMAIN_FEATURE_CAPABILITIES properly
On 02/06/2018 11:42 AM, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
Unlike most other features, VIR_DOMAIN_FEATURE_CAPABILITIES is
of type virDomainCapabilitiesPolicy instead of virTristateSwitch,
so we need to handle it separately for the error message to make
sense.
Signed-off-by: Andrea Bolognani <abologna(a)redhat.com>
---
src/conf/domain_conf.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/conf/domain_conf.c b/src/conf/domain_conf.c
index e4d01b869..9f019c906 100644
--- a/src/conf/domain_conf.c
+++ b/src/conf/domain_conf.c
@@ -21336,7 +21336,6 @@ virDomainDefFeaturesCheckABIStability(virDomainDefPtr src,
case VIR_DOMAIN_FEATURE_HYPERV:
case VIR_DOMAIN_FEATURE_KVM:
case VIR_DOMAIN_FEATURE_PVSPINLOCK:
- case VIR_DOMAIN_FEATURE_CAPABILITIES:
case VIR_DOMAIN_FEATURE_PMU:
case VIR_DOMAIN_FEATURE_VMPORT:
case VIR_DOMAIN_FEATURE_GIC:
@@ -21355,6 +21354,18 @@ virDomainDefFeaturesCheckABIStability(virDomainDefPtr src,
}
break;
+ case VIR_DOMAIN_FEATURE_CAPABILITIES:
+ if (src->features[i] != dst->features[i]) {
+ virReportError(VIR_ERR_CONFIG_UNSUPPORTED,
+ _("State of feature '%s:%s' differs: "
+ "source: '%s', destination:
'%s'"),
+ featureName, "policy",
OK - based on what I saw Peter ACK for Michal's patches related to his
similar usage, fine. Still looks strange especially since we're talking
about a named XML attribute which we document as "policy". I just hope
there isn't some language variant that alters the meaning. It does look
strange to me "State of feature 'capabilities:policy' differs: "... I
almost wonder if "State of feature 'capabilities' attribute 'policy'
differs: " would help (or really matter).
Also, based on the tests/domainschemadata/domain-caps-features.xml:
<capabilities policy="deny">
<mknod state="on"/>
</capabilities>
/me wonders how many more yaks might get shaved if we needed to check
differences w/r/t the caps_features array?
IOW: If src->features[i] != VIR_DOMAIN_CAPABILITIES_POLICY_DEFAULT, then
should we be checking each of the VIR_DOMAIN_CAPS_FEATURE_LAST to ensure
that they're not different too.
Not something required for this patch, but perhaps a follow-up...
Reviewed-by: John Ferlan <jferlan(a)redhat.com>
+
virDomainCapabilitiesPolicyTypeToString(src->features[i]),
+
virDomainCapabilitiesPolicyTypeToString(dst->features[i]));
+ return false;
+ }
+ break;
+
case VIR_DOMAIN_FEATURE_LAST:
break;
}