(2012/12/17 20:07), Peter Krempa wrote:
On 12/17/12 09:05, Ken ICHIKAWA wrote:
I have a problem about parsing vendor_id of domain XML. When define vendor_id attribute, why definition of fallback attribute is needed? I explain below for example. (I used virsh edit.)
Current domain xml state is like below, <domain> <cpu> </cpu> </domain>
And I redefine domain xml like below, <domain> <cpu> <model vendor_id='aaaabbbbcccc'>core2duo</model> </cpu> </domain>
Then, do dumpxml, vendor_id is not reflected like below. <domain> <cpu mode='custom' match='exact'> <model fallback='allow'>core2duo</model> </cpu> </domain>
I think this is not right behavior. It should be defined like below. <domain> <cpu mode='custom' match='exact'> <model fallback='allow' vendor_id='aaaabbbbcccc'>core2duo</model> </cpu> </domain>
And if I define fallback attribute and vendor_id attribute at the same time, or define vendor_id attribute after fallback attribute is defined, vendor_id attribute is reflected normally. Is it a bug? or is there some reason?
I read past mailing list's thread about the patch adding vendor_id but I could not find the reason. https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2012-June/thread.html#00917 It seems that patch v1 doesn't need definition of fallback attribute but v2 needs it.
If it's a bug, please consider to apply this patch.
It is a bug.
This patch fixes a problem that vendor_id attribute can not be defined when fallback attribute is not defined.
Signed-off-by: Ken ICHIKAWA <ichikawa.ken@jp.fujitsu.com> --- src/conf/cpu_conf.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
ACK to the changes, unfortunately some of the code you touched is really ugly so I will repost your patch along with patches that fix the code after it's applied.
I will also simplify your commit message to describe the problem better, please let me know if you're okay with that.
OK. Thank you! Ken ICHIKAWA