Bug with <bootloader /> (Re: [libvirt] Reusing dumpxml output)

[Stefan de Konink]

Output from dumpxml:

<domain type='xen' id='-1'>
  <name>unittest_200808081319_00010</name>
  <uuid>380ac319-6b7c-a471-305c-e467c1672c73</uuid>
  <bootloader/>
  <os>
    <type>linux</type>
    <kernel>/usr/lib/xen/boot/linux-2.6.20-xen-r6</kernel>
    <cmdline> root=/dev/xvda ro</cmdline>
  </os>
  <memory>131072</memory>
  <vcpu>1</vcpu>
  <on_poweroff>destroy</on_poweroff>
  <on_reboot>restart</on_reboot>
  <on_crash>destroy</on_crash>
  <devices>
    <disk type='file' device='disk'>
      <driver name='tap' type='aio'/>
      <source file='/mnt/images/unittest_200808081319_1'/>
      <target dev='xvda' bus='xen'/>
    </disk>
    <interface type='bridge'>
      <source bridge='xenbr0'/>
      <target dev='vif-1.0'/>
      <mac address='00:16:3E:00:00:1E'/>
      <ip address='85.17.131.40'/>
      <script path='vif-bridge'/>
    </interface>
    <console type='pty'>
      <target port='0'/>
    </console>
  </devices>
</domain>

*bootloader was never specified*

Now if I create that file again look at the changes:

<domain type='xen' id='-1'>
  <name>unittest_200808081319_00010</name>
  <uuid>380ac319-6b7c-a471-305c-e467c1672c73</uuid>
  <bootloader/>
  <os>
    <type>linux</type>
  </os>
  <memory>131072</memory>
  <vcpu>1</vcpu>
  <on_poweroff>destroy</on_poweroff>
  <on_reboot>restart</on_reboot>
  <on_crash>destroy</on_crash>
  <devices>
    <disk type='file' device='disk'>
      <driver name='tap' type='aio'/>
      <source file='/mnt/images/unittest_200808081319_00010_1'/>
      <target dev='xvda' bus='xen'/>
    </disk>
    <interface type='bridge'>
      <source bridge='xenbr0'/>
      <target dev='vif-1.0'/>
      <mac address='00:16:3E:00:00:1E'/>
      <ip address='85.17.131.40'/>
      <script path='vif-bridge'/>
    </interface>
    <console type='pty'>
      <target port='0'/>
    </console>
  </devices>
</domain>


Looks interesting he :)


Now the only way to get the <os /> childnodes back is to remove the
bootloader node. I think we can see this as a bug :)



Stefan