[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 1/2] Improve virDomain{Attach, Detach}Device documentation



Cole Robinson wrote:
> On 11/20/2009 01:39 PM, Jim Fehlig wrote:
>   
>> Daniel Veillard wrote:
>>     
>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 04:06:41PM -0700, Jim Fehlig wrote:
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> virDomain{Attach,Detach}Device is only permitted on active
>>>> domains.  Explicitly state this restriction in the API
>>>> documentation.
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>>   Well, actually I'm not sure it's true. For exemple the
>>> XML xen driver has an implementation for inactive Xen domains,
>>> and if I look at the VirtualBox driver it seems to take care
>>> of domains which are not currently running (or paused).
>>>   
>>>       
>> So what do folks prefer?  Allow the individual drivers to restrict
>> attach/detach device or enforce restriction in the front-end?  IMO, it
>> should be delegated to the individual drivers, with a comment in the API
>> description that some hypervisors may not support this operation on
>> inactive domains.  Why restrict a hypervisor's management functionality
>> in the libvirt front-end?
>>
>>     
>
> Because it introduces hypervisor dependent API differences that aren't
> programmatically discoverable.

They are discoverable if you consider receiving a "not supported" error
after making the call :-).  But yes, it would be nice if apps knew these
capabilities up front to enable/disable widgets and such.  Perhaps
libvirt will need a "hypervisor management service" capabilities element
some day.

>  This makes life difficult for apps that
> want to support multiple hypervisors (like virt-manager, where we have
> already bumped up against this inconsistency between xen and qemu
> drivers). In this case, if xen allows offline device addition but qemu
> does not, virt-manager will have to use the safe subset and never
> attempt attach device for an offline VM, or hardcode HV differences into
> the app.
>   

Yep, understood.

> For that reason, I think we should either always allow offline
> AttachDevice or never allow it. And of the two, I highly favor the
> latter, since the alternative would force every driver to reimplement
> something that can easily be accomplished with DefineXML (unless the HV
> supports it natively, which in Xen's case sounds like it isn't handled
> consistently for all device types).
>   

> Maybe a way forward here is to clarify the virsh commands: we can alter
> attach/detach-device to manually edit the VM xml for inactive VMs (but
> also attempt hotplug if the VM is running), and introduce new commands
> hotplug-device and hotunplug-device which map straight through to the
> API. This way virsh won't regress, and indeed will improve: only
> straight API users will see a change in behavior.
>   

Ok, IIUC you prefer to never allow offline {Attach,Detach}Device in the
API.  Do others concur?  If so I can spin a patch that

- Improves virDomain(Attach,Detach}Device documentation
- Disallows these operations in libvirt front-end as DV suggested
- Improves virsh app as Cole suggested

Thanks,
Jim


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]