From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Daniel P. Berrange" Subject: Re: PATCH: Fix name uniqueness check Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 19:18:11 +0100 Message-ID: <20071001181811.GH11414@redhat.com> References: <20070927204023.GQ17433@redhat.com> <20071001135718.GA11414@redhat.com> Reply-To: "Daniel P. Berrange" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071001135718.GA11414@redhat.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Keir Fraser Cc: Jim Fehlig , xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Masaki Kanno List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 02:57:18PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 06:36:17AM +0100, Keir Fraser wrote: > > On 27/9/07 21:40, "Daniel P. Berrange" wrote: > > > > >> Unstable, but not 3.1.1, also has > > >> > > >> http://xenbits2.xensource.com/xen-unstable.hg?rev/207582c8d88b > > >> > > >> I did a little testing on a 3.1-based system that includes the above c/s > > >> and your reversion of c/s 15124. No problems noticed testing create, > > >> new, reboot, save, restore. Did not test migration or hvm guests. So > > >> perhaps reverting 15124 is fine for unstable but not sure about 3.1.1 > > >> *without* c/s 15642. > > > > > > Yep, I just tested 3.1.1 with 15124 reverted, and 15642 applied and it copes > > > with the use cases I have. So I'd reckon on making those two changes to the > > > 3.1-testing tree would be sufficient. > > > > Is this still wanted? Masaki Kanno's response seems to indicate there are > > still issues. > > I need to try and reproduce Masaki's results & figure out what's missing. > We definitely need some form of patch, because as it stands two important > use cases are broken for xen-3.1-testing - provisioning of new VMs wit the > virt-install tool being one of them. I'd rather reduce the strictness of > name uniqueness checks to be too leniant than be too strict and break things There are 6 basic test cases: a. same name + same UUID: b. diff name + same UUID: c. same name + diff UUID: d. diff name + diff UUID: e. same name + no UUID: f. diff name + no UUID: These need to be tested with 'xm create' and 'xm new', and all tests need to be done with the pre-existing VM both inactive, and active. As it stands now, 3.1-testing incorrectly rejects several of the test cases. It also incorrectly allows several others. Adding in http://xenbits2.xensource.com/xen-unstable.hg?rev/207582c8d88b from xen-unstable causes it to incorrectly allow sevaral more, and does not fix the false rejects. Reverting 15124:f5459c358575 removes the false rejects, but doesn't deal with the false allows. So no combination of patches from either 3.1-testing, or -unstable is showing completely correct behaviour & both trees need further fixes. Hopefully have something more later today... Dan. -- |=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston. +1 978 392 2496 -=| |=- Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ -=| |=- Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/ -=| |=- GnuPG: 7D3B9505 F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 -=|