[libvirt] [PATCH] qemu: don't refuse to undefine a guest with NVRAM file

[Maxim Nestratov]

24.02.2015 13:12, Daniel P. Berrange пишет:

> The undefine operation should always be allowed to succeed
> regardless of whether any NVRAM file exists. ie we should
> not force the application to use the VIR_DOMAIN_UNDEFINE_NVRAM
> flag. It is valid for the app to decide it wants the NVRAM
> file left on disk, in the same way that disk images are left
> on disk at undefine.
> ---
>   src/qemu/qemu_driver.c | 20 +++++++-------------
>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_driver.c b/src/qemu/qemu_driver.c
> index bec05d4..302bf48 100644
> --- a/src/qemu/qemu_driver.c
> +++ b/src/qemu/qemu_driver.c
> @@ -6985,19 +6985,13 @@ qemuDomainUndefineFlags(virDomainPtr dom,
>   
>       if (!virDomainObjIsActive(vm) &&
>           vm->def->os.loader && vm->def->os.loader->nvram &&
> -        virFileExists(vm->def->os.loader->nvram)) {
> -        if (!(flags & VIR_DOMAIN_UNDEFINE_NVRAM)) {
> -            virReportError(VIR_ERR_OPERATION_INVALID, "%s",
> -                           _("cannot delete inactive domain with nvram"));
> -            goto cleanup;
> -        }
> -
> -        if (unlink(vm->def->os.loader->nvram) < 0) {
> -            virReportSystemError(errno,
> -                                 _("failed to remove nvram: %s"),
> -                                 vm->def->os.loader->nvram);
> -            goto cleanup;
> -        }
> +        virFileExists(vm->def->os.loader->nvram) &&
> +        (flags & VIR_DOMAIN_UNDEFINE_NVRAM) &&
> +        (unlink(vm->def->os.loader->nvram) < 0)) {
> +        virReportSystemError(errno,
> +                             _("failed to remove nvram: %s"),
> +                             vm->def->os.loader->nvram);
> +        goto cleanup;
>       }
>   
>       if (virDomainDeleteConfig(cfg->configDir, cfg->autostartDir, vm) < 0)

As I found out the discussion followed this patch didn't come to a 
conclusion and this or any other patches on the matter weren't commited.
We hit the problem with inability to undefine a domain leaving nvram 
untouched recently and this patch would solve it perfectly.
I think it's worth commiting IMHO and maybe the documentation should 
reflect this slight change in behavior.
Any new thoughts?

Maxim