From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:48578)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <namei.unix@gmail.com>) id 1UVLM6-0008LH-5O
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 08:32:58 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <namei.unix@gmail.com>) id 1UVLM1-0005qk-Ad
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 08:32:54 -0400
Received: from mail-pa0-f47.google.com ([209.85.220.47]:58728)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <namei.unix@gmail.com>) id 1UVLM1-0005qA-4o
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 08:32:49 -0400
Received: by mail-pa0-f47.google.com with SMTP id bj1so1838805pad.34
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 05:32:47 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5179226A.1010004@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 20:32:42 +0800
From: Liu Yuan <namei.unix@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1366822079-6582-1-git-send-email-namei.unix@gmail.com>
	<1366879354-5120-1-git-send-email-namei.unix@gmail.com>
	<m2sj2f2biw.wl%morita.kazutaka@gmail.com>
	<5178FB09.9010608@gmail.com>
	<m2r4hz2agu.wl%morita.kazutaka@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <m2r4hz2agu.wl%morita.kazutaka@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [sheepdog] [PATCH v3] sheepdog: fix loadvm
	operation
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: MORITA Kazutaka <morita.kazutaka@gmail.com>
Cc: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>, sheepdog@lists.wpkg.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>

On 04/25/2013 06:03 PM, MORITA Kazutaka wrote:
> The block driver tries to delete the vdi, but the sheepdog servers
> return "No such vdi" - I thought that something goes wrong in this
> case.
> 
> What's the scenario where the sheepdog servers return SD_RES_NO_VDI?
> Can we ignore it safely?

V2 has this problem, if we loadvm twice in a short of time that no
sd_create_branch is called in the time window, the second loadvm will
get this NO_VDI error. But with V3 we don't have this problem. Anyway it
is okay to printf message for this case for v3. I'll update v4.

Thanks,
Yuan