From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Daniel P. Berrange" Subject: Re: PATCH: Fix name uniqueness check Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 14:35:16 +0100 Message-ID: <20071005133516.GA17095@redhat.com> References: <20071001181811.GH11414@redhat.com> <20071001221216.GA5866@redhat.com> <73C804F5AE2FF9kanno.masaki@jp.fujitsu.com> <20071002144712.GA10551@redhat.com> <96C8070F466E36kanno.masaki@jp.fujitsu.com> Reply-To: "Daniel P. Berrange" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="vtzGhvizbBRQ85DL" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <96C8070F466E36kanno.masaki@jp.fujitsu.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: Masaki Kanno Cc: Jim Fehlig , xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org --vtzGhvizbBRQ85DL Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 02:19:16PM +0900, Masaki Kanno wrote: > Tue, 2 Oct 2007 15:47:12 +0100, "Daniel P. Berrange" wrote: > > >On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 10:11:01PM +0900, Masaki Kanno wrote: > >> Hi Dan, > >> > >> Thanks for your effort and your patch. > >> I think that the allow/reject rules are wonderful. But, I have a few > >> comments. > >> > >> > >> I agree the rule of the following case. > >> But, the behavior is (redefine+rename+create), isn't it? > > > >Yes, that is actually what it ends up doing, replacing the config for the > >matching UUID causes a rename. > > > >> When I tested the following case, the result was as follows. > >> I think that we should reject xm new command if same UUID vm is active. > > > >I hadn't noticed that, but its easy to special case this particular > >case / scenario to be rejected. Or we could fix it to correctly rename > >the existing running VM which might be more user friendly. > > > >Either option is a small add-on patch to my previous submissions. > > Sorry for delay with replies to your message. > > I am worried about changing the configuration of existing running VM. > But, my worry is vague, and does not have great grounds. > If UUID is same, maybe we will become possible to change the name of > the VM and all the configuration of the VM by xm new command, I guess. > > If only the config.sxp of the VM is changed by xm new command, and if > the definition of the config.sxp is reflected after xm shutdown command, > my worry will be resolved. Kan, give this patch a try which simply updates the name_label field for the exsting VM. With this minimal rename it avoids the risk of the same VM being started twice as you demonstrated Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrange