[Libvirt-cim] [PATCH 0 of 3] [TEST] Add ElementAllocatedFromPool for XenFV & KVM support

[Kaitlin Rupert]

>  > EAFP 01 is failing due to the disk pool issue.  You'll need to create a
>  > function that makes sure the guest's disk resource belongs to a pool.
>  > I'd suggested this in a previous mail, and I know you said you were
>  > going to add such a function.  But I haven't seen a patch for that yet -
>  > did I miss it?
> 
> I've created diskpool.conf file in EAFP.01 patch as follows. Any other
> file have to be created?

You'll need to create the diskpool file if the libvirt version <= 0.4.0

Otherwise, you'll need to create a virtual storage pool and make sure 
the guest's disks belong to that pool.

>  > This is because the InstanceID used for the diskpool is incorrect. This
>  > InstanceID will work on libvirt versions older than 0.4.0, but newer
>  > versions need to use the diskpool ID.
>  
>  If the libvirt 0.4.0 or newer, the disk pool is supported. But why I 
> can't  
>  get th diskpool ID by wbemein?  There is none output of wbemein 
> below(the libvirt
>  version is 0.4.1 on my test machine):
> 
>  wbemein http://root:password@localhost:5988/root/virt:KVM_DiskPool

You'll need to create a storage pool.  This process is similar to the 
network pool support.  Here's some more info:

http://libvirt.org/storage.html#StorageBackendDir


>  > I'm guessing the XenFV system probably has an older version of libvirt.
>  >
>  > Sorry for all the confusion!  It's tricky making tests work for multiple
>  > guest types, as well as with differing package versions.
>  >
>   The patch for KVM & XenFV support are all passed on my test machine, which
>   is set up by F9, the libvirt version is either 0.4.0 or 0.4.1. So I don't
>   reproduce the failing. Maybe I'm still in the confusion of how to make 
> this
>   patch work correctly, would you please give more detail instruction or
>   add another patch for it?

On your F9 system, which version of libvirt-cim are you running? 
Diskpool support went in changeset 496, which is after the release rpm 
was tagged.

-- 
Kaitlin Rupert
IBM Linux Technology Center
kaitlin at linux.vnet.ibm.com