On 10/01/2010 02:09 PM, Jiri Denemark wrote:
When a user calls to virDomain{Attach,Detach,Update}DeviceFlags() with flags == VIR_DOMAIN_DEVICE_MODIFY_LIVE on an inactive guest running on an old Xen hypervisor (such as RHEL-5) xend_internal driver reports:
Xend version does not support modifying persistent config
which is pretty confusing since no-one requested to modify persistent config.
Hmm - given the recent discussion on vcpus (which is probably what made you look at this, right?)...
--- src/xen/xend_internal.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------------ 1 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/xen/xend_internal.c b/src/xen/xend_internal.c index fce0233..1318bd4 100644 --- a/src/xen/xend_internal.c +++ b/src/xen/xend_internal.c @@ -3878,6 +3878,12 @@ xenDaemonAttachDeviceFlags(virDomainPtr domain, const char *xml, priv = (xenUnifiedPrivatePtr) domain->conn->privateData;
if (domain->id< 0) { + /* Cannot modify live config if domain is inactive */ + if (flags& VIR_DOMAIN_DEVICE_MODIFY_LIVE) { + virXendError(VIR_ERR_OPERATION_INVALID, "%s", + _("Cannot modify live config if domain is inactive")); + return -1; + }
Should we always error out if _LIVE and inactive, or should we special-case _CONFIG|_LIVE by silently ignoring the _LIVE flag on inactive domains? -- Eric Blake eblake@redhat.com +1-801-349-2682 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org