[libvirt] [PATCH v2 0/9] Be consistent with vir*Obj*Remove* APIs
John Ferlan
jferlan at redhat.com
Tue Apr 10 12:03:34 UTC 2018
On 04/10/2018 04:47 AM, Marc Hartmayer wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 11:19 PM +0200, John Ferlan <jferlan at redhat.com> wrote:
>> v1: https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2018-March/msg01295.html
>>
>> NB: This can wait until 4.2.0 is release, but I figured I'd post this
>> now just to put it on the radar and of course in hopes that someone
>> will look during the idle moment or two before the release.
>>
>> Changes since v1:
>>
>> Short story: Rework the processing of the code
>>
>> Longer story:
>>
>> In his review Erik noted that there's a "fire dance" when processing
>> the vir*Obj*Remove APIs of requiring a locked object upon entry, then
>> adding a reference to that object, unlocking the object, locking the
>> list to which it is contained, and then relocking the object.
>>
>> So it took some time to think about it and during one lengthy meeting
>> today I had the aha moment that the *Remove API's could take the same
>> key (e.g., uuid or name) used to Add or Find the object and use it for
>> the Remove API. This allows the Remove API to not require a locked (and
>> reffed) object upon entry and perform the lock dance, remove the object,
>> and return just just a reffed object forcing the caller to know to Unref
>> object.
>>
>> Instead, let's simplify things. The *Remove API can take the key, Find
>> the object in the list, remove it from the hash tables, and dispose of
>> the object. In essence the antecedent to the Add or AssignDef API's
>> taking a def, creating an object, and adding it the object to the hash
>> table(s). If there are two *Remove threads competing, one will win and
>> perform the removal, while the other will call *Remove, but won't find
>> the object in the hash table, and just return none the wiser.
>>
>> And yes, I think this can also work for the Domain code, but it's going
>> to take a few patch series to get there as that code is not consistent
>> between consumers.
>>
>> John Ferlan (9):
>> secret: Rework LoadAllConfigs
>> secret: Alter virSecretObjListRemove processing
>> interface: Alter virInterfaceObjListRemove processing
>> nodedev: Alter virNodeDeviceObjListRemove processing
>> conf: Clean up virStoragePoolObjLoad error processing
>> storage: Clean up storagePoolCreateXML error processing
>> test: Clean up testStoragePoolCreateXML error processing
>> conf: Move virStoragePoolObjRemove closer to AssignDef
>> storagepool: Alter virStoragePoolObjRemove processing
>
> Side note:
> Wouldn’t is be useful to refactor all the vir*ObjList* things as they’re
> looking quite similar? Not sure if it’s easily feasible in all places.
>
Well - that was the point of what I started last year, but there hasn't
been any general agreement or acceptance of patches for that. My changes
made use of objects and more generic naming to unify things; however,
they weren't acceptable with (IIRC and in my words) the preference being
more specific naming using switch/case statements and shim API's.
The last full posting (a v5) of what I had done is here:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2017-August/msg00659.html
If you feel so inclined you can follow the history of comments through v4:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2017-August/msg00537.html
and v3:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2017-June/msg00916.html
w/ review comments starting here:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2017-July/msg01032.html
Maybe once the domain code is modified to be more common (in process
now) and if nwfilter ever could gain acceptance, something could be
done. Still I have my doubts it'll happen especially since nwfilter
patches just cannot get any sort of agreement, last try here:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2018-February/msg00325.html
John
> […snip]
>
> --
> Beste Grüße / Kind regards
> Marc Hartmayer
>
> IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH
> Vorsitzende des Aufsichtsrats: Martina Koederitz
> Geschäftsführung: Dirk Wittkopp
> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Böblingen
> Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 243294
>
More information about the libvir-list
mailing list