On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 11:02:03AM +0200, Peter Krempa wrote:
On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 22:37:02 -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
> As shown in recent patches, several drivers provided only an older
> counterpart of an API, making it harder to uniformly use the newer
> preferred API form. We can prevent future instances of this by failing
> the driver at initialization time if a modern API is forgotten when an
> older API is present. For now, the list includes any interface with a
> Flags counterpart, except virDomainBlockStatsFlags which is a bit more
> complex than virDomainBlockStats.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake(a)redhat.com>
> ---
> src/libvirt.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/libvirt.c b/src/libvirt.c
> index 7e665b6cba..a12a72a31b 100644
> --- a/src/libvirt.c
> +++ b/src/libvirt.c
> @@ -567,19 +567,53 @@ int
> virRegisterConnectDriver(virConnectDriverPtr driver,
> bool setSharedDrivers)
> {
> - VIR_DEBUG("driver=%p name=%s", driver,
> - driver ? NULLSTR(driver->hypervisorDriver->name) :
"(null)");
> + const char *driver_name;
> +
> + driver_name = driver ? NULLSTR(driver->hypervisorDriver->name) :
"(null)";
> + VIR_DEBUG("driver=%p name=%s", driver, driver_name);
>
> virCheckNonNullArgReturn(driver, -1);
> if (virConnectDriverTabCount >= MAX_DRIVERS) {
> virReportError(VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR,
> _("Too many drivers, cannot register %s"),
> - driver->hypervisorDriver->name);
> + driver_name);
> return -1;
> }
>
> + /* Check for drivers failing to provide a modern counterpart to an
> + * older API */
> +#define REQUIRE_API(old, new) \
> + do { \
> + if (driver->hypervisorDriver->old && \
> + !driver->hypervisorDriver->new) { \
> + fprintf(stderr, " ***FIXME!: driver %s is broken on %s\n", \
> + driver ? NULLSTR(driver->hypervisorDriver->name) :
"(null)", #new); \
fprintf in a library function is really wrong.
Also I don't think this really requires a runtime check as the APIs
aren't really going to just disappear.
Yeah, I think we can easily do this validation via a make check rule
using static analysis.
We could hack either check-driverimpls.pl or check-drivername.pl to
mandate that both the old + new method are always provided as a pair,
or just create a new dedicated check script for that.
Failing during "make check" is preferable to printf at runtime.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|:
https://berrange.com -o-
https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|:
https://libvirt.org -o-
https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|:
https://entangle-photo.org -o-
https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|