[libvirt] [PATCH 1/2] storage: allow zero capacity with non-backing file to be created

John Ferlan jferlan at redhat.com
Fri Jul 24 15:31:42 UTC 2015



On 07/24/2015 09:25 AM, Chris J Arges wrote:
> On 07/24/2015 06:10 AM, Ján Tomko wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 04:01:22PM -0400, John Ferlan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 06/30/2015 04:19 PM, Chris J Arges wrote:
>>>> In commit fbcf7da95, a change was introduced that no longer allowed defining
>>
>> As John pointed out, it was commit 155ca616e that changed it.
>>
>>>> volumes via XML with a capacity of '0'. Because we check for info.size_arg to be
>>>> non-zero, this use-case fails. This patch allows info.size_arg to be zero if no
>>>> backing store is specified.
>>>>
>>
>> I must admit I do not see the use case here.
>> Should we allow zero-sized volumes with backing stores too?
>> Other than that the fix looks good to me.
>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Chris J Arges <chris.j.arges at canonical.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  src/storage/storage_backend.c | 2 +-
>>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Found an orphaned patch....
>>>
>>
>> Nice catch, it must've slipped through the cracks.
>>
>>> Since that's Jan's fix - he should have a say here, but it seems you're
>>> correct. Also of note is commit id '155ca616e' which changed the check
>>> to add that check for size_arg being non-zero.
>>>
>>> The ordering of the date of when the change was created is odd. Commit
>>> id 'fbcf7da95' was committed after '155ca616e', but authored months before.
>>
>> It was resting in my local git for a while, then rebased against master.
>> The AuthorDate only says when the commit was started and does not get
>> updated with every amend/rebase.
>>
>> Jan
>>
> 
> Hey thanks for taking a look.
> At this point do you need me to re-send the patch with any updates?
> 

No need to do anything - I updated the commit message to use '155ca616e'
and pushed the series.

John




More information about the libvir-list mailing list