2010/6/11 Daniel P. Berrange <berrange@redhat.com>:
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 06:25:29PM +0200, Matthias Bolte wrote:
2010/6/11 Daniel P. Berrange <berrange@redhat.com>:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 01:28:29AM +0200, Matthias Bolte wrote:
Report that libvirt was built without that driver instead of trying to connect to a libvirtd, when we know that this is going to fail. ---
ACK, this looks fine to me. One day I'd like to change the way we pick the drivers during the open method, but that's faar too invasive for now.
Regards, Daniel
Maybe something like having a scheme-to-driver mapping table would be nice, instead of asking each driver.
Yes, that's exactly what I'd think. In addition when compiling out drivers instead of not adding anything to the driver table, we could add a no-op driver that simply reports that the driver isn't available.
Daniel
I started this patch like that. I added a minimal driver that does exactly that and I edited virInitialize like this: # ifdef WITH_ESX if (esxRegister() == -1) return -1; # else if (disabledRegister("esx") == -1) return -1; if (disabledRegister("gsx") == -1) return -1; # endif But I dropped it after I thought that I could not make this work with driver modules. But as I think of it now again: I could just have called disabledRegister in virDriverLoadModule when the requested driver wasn't found. Damn, I should have give it a second thought before pushing this patch. :( My first approach wouldn't have touched the way do_open picks the drivers, so it's not that invasive. It would just have put those "disabled" entries in to the driver table. Maybe I should recreate that disabled driver, just to see if I can make it really working properly. Any interest in that approach? Matthias