[libvirt] [PATCH 1/2] xenFormatNet: correct `type=netfront' to 'type=vif' to match libxl
Chun Yan Liu
cyliu at suse.com
Tue May 17 06:32:10 UTC 2016
>>> On 5/14/2016 at 12:54 AM, in message <573606AB.4080200 at suse.com>, Jim Fehlig
<jfehlig at suse.com> wrote:
> On 05/13/2016 06:59 AM, Joao Martins wrote:
> >
> > On 05/12/2016 09:55 PM, Jim Fehlig wrote:
> >> Joao Martins wrote:
> >>> On 05/12/2016 12:54 AM, Jim Fehlig wrote:
> >>>> On 04/21/2016 05:10 AM, Chunyan Liu wrote:
> >>>>> According to current xl.cfg docs and xl codes, it uses type=vif
> >>>>> instead of type=netfront.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Currently after domxml-to-native, libvirt xml model=netfront will be
> >>>>> converted to xl type=netfront. This has no problem before, xen codes
> >>>>> for a long time just check type=ioemu, if not, set type to _VIF.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Since libxl uses parse_nic_config to avoid duplicate codes, it
> >>>>> compares 'type=vif' and 'type=ioemu' for valid parameters, others
> >>>>> are considered as invalid, thus we have problem with type=netfront
> >>>>> in xl config file.
> >>>>> #xl create sles12gm-hvm.orig
> >>>>> Parsing config from sles12gm-hvm.orig
> >>>>> Invalid parameter `type'.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Correct the convertion in libvirt, so that it matchs libxl codes
> >>>>> and also xl.cfg.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Chunyan Liu <cyliu at suse.com>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>> src/xenconfig/xen_common.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
> >>>>> src/xenconfig/xen_common.h | 7 ++++---
> >>>>> src/xenconfig/xen_xl.c | 4 ++--
> >>>>> src/xenconfig/xen_xm.c | 8 ++++----
> >>>>> 4 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/src/xenconfig/xen_common.c b/src/xenconfig/xen_common.c
> >>>>> index e1d9cf6..f54d6b6 100644
> >>>>> --- a/src/xenconfig/xen_common.c
> >>>>> +++ b/src/xenconfig/xen_common.c
> >>>>> @@ -801,9 +801,8 @@ xenParseCharDev(virConfPtr conf, virDomainDefPtr def)
> >>>>> return -1;
> >>>>> }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -
> >>>>> static int
> >>>>> -xenParseVif(virConfPtr conf, virDomainDefPtr def)
> >>>>> +xenParseVif(virConfPtr conf, virDomainDefPtr def, const char
> *vif_typename)
> >>>>> {
> >>>>> char *script = NULL;
> >>>>> virDomainNetDefPtr net = NULL;
> >>>>> @@ -942,7 +941,7 @@ xenParseVif(virConfPtr conf, virDomainDefPtr def)
> >>>>> VIR_STRDUP(net->model, model) < 0)
> >>>>> goto cleanup;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - if (!model[0] && type[0] && STREQ(type, "netfront") &&
> >>>>> + if (!model[0] && type[0] && STREQ(type, vif_typename) &&
> >>>>> VIR_STRDUP(net->model, "netfront") < 0)
> >>>>> goto cleanup;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> @@ -1042,11 +1041,17 @@ xenParseGeneralMeta(virConfPtr conf, virDomainDefPtr
> def, virCapsPtr caps)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> /*
> >>>>> * A convenience function for parsing all config common to both XM and XL
> >>>>> + *
> >>>>> + * vif_typename: type name for a paravirtualized network could
> >>>>> + * be different for xm and xl. For xm, it uses type=netfront;
> >>>>> + * for xl, it uses type=vif. So, for xm, should pass "netfront";
> >>>>> + * for xl, should pass "vif".
> >>>>> */
> >>>>> int
> >>>>> xenParseConfigCommon(virConfPtr conf,
> >>>>> virDomainDefPtr def,
> >>>>> - virCapsPtr caps)
> >>>>> + virCapsPtr caps,
> >>>>> + const char *vif_typename)
> >>>> One thing I didn't recall when suggesting this approach is that
> xenParseVif() is
> >>>> called in xenParseConfigCommon(). I was thinking it was called from
> >>>> xen_{xl,xm}.c and the extra parameter would only be added to the
> >>>> xen{Format,Parse}Vif functions. I don't particularly like seeing the device
> >>>> specific parameter added to the common functions, but wont object if others
> are
> >>>> fine with it. Any other opinions on that? Joao?
> >>> That's a good point - probably we can avoid it by using
> >>> xen{Format,Parse}Vif (with the signature change Chunyan proposes)
> individually
> >>> on xenParseXM and xenParseXL.
> >> Nod.
> >>
> >>> And there wouldn't be any xenParseConfigCommon
> >>> with device-specific parameters (as vif being one of the many devices that
> the
> >>> routine is handling). The vif config is the same between xm and xl, with
> the
> >>> small difference wrt to the validation on xen libxl side - so having in
> >>> xen_common.c makes sense.
> >> Nod again :-).
> >>
> >>>> And one reason I wont object is that the alternative (calling
> >>>> xen{Format,Parse}Vif from xen_{xl,xm}.c) is a rather large change since all
> the
> >>>> tests/{xl,xm}configdata/ files would need to be adjusted.
> >>> Hm, perhaps I fail to see what the large change would be. We would keep the
> same
> >>> interface (i.e. model=netfront as valid on libvirt-side and converting to
> >>> type="vif" where applicable (libxl)) then the xml and .cfg won't change.
> >>> Furthermore, we only use e1000 which is valid for both cases and Chunyan
> adds
> >>> one test case to cover this series. So may be the adjustment you suggest
> above
> >>> wouldn't be as cumbersome as to change all the tests/{xl,xm}configdata
> files?
> >> On the Parse side we would be fine, but on the Format side 'vif =' would
> now be
> >> emitted after xenFormatConfigCommon executed. So the xl.cfg output would
> change
> >> from e.g.
> >>
> > Ah, totally missed that out: it looks a large change. I think XL vif won't
> > diverge from XM anytime soon unless we start adding support for more
> qemu-ish
> > features on xen libxl (e.g. vhostuser, or even block "target" field
> equivalent).
>
> That's a good point. Instead of creating a bunch of turmoil now over
> 'netfront'
> vs 'vif', we should wait until something more substantial drives the change.
>
> > I am fine with the approach on the patch, but the way you suggested is
> indeed
> > more correct.
>
> Perhaps as a compromise, the new xen{Format,Parse}ConfigCommon parameter
> could
> be of type 'enum xenConfigFlavor' or similar, with flavors
> XEN_CONFIG_FLAVOR_XL
> and XEN_CONFIG_FLAVOR_XM.
We can reuse XEN_CONFIG_FORMAT_XM/XL.
Before that we need to unify existing XEN_CONFIG_FORMAT_XM and
LIBXL_CONFIG_FORMAT_XM (actually the same) to only one
XEN_CONFIG_FORMAT_XM and moved to xen_common.h.
- Chunyan
> That would accommodate other trivial differences
> we
> might find in the future.
>
> Regards,
> Jim
>
>
More information about the libvir-list
mailing list