From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keir Fraser Subject: Re: [PATCH][XEND]Fix checkname so that it detects duplicate domains. Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 10:39:37 +0100 Message-ID: References: <907625E08839C4409CE5768403633E0B02561D37@sefsexmb1.amd.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <907625E08839C4409CE5768403633E0B02561D37@sefsexmb1.amd.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: "Petersson, Mats" , xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 25/5/07 10:25, "Petersson, Mats" wrote: >> If we don't enforce UUID uniqueness, what is the point of >> having a UUID? >> Also, don't we store some VM information in /vm/ in >> xenstore: how does >> that work out if we have multiple domains with the same UUID? > > All very good points. I don't actually know how this is meant to work, > I'm just fixing an apparent bug, which is that if the UUID is > duplicated, you can have two domains with the same name, which isn't > what is supposed to happen. There should probably ALSO be a "_checkuuid" > function to verify that the UUID is unique. Not sure it's my place to > fix that, tho'? Oh. Your patch comment strongly implies that the current behaviour of xend is to check for UUID uniqueness, and that you are changing this to a check for name uniqueness. And that looks like what this patch does, too. But here you seem to be saying that xend enforces neither UUID uniqueness nor name uniqueness? -- Keir