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

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH v2 1/2] Qemu/Gluster: Add Gluster protocol as supported network disk formats.



On 10/05/2012 01:13 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
On 10/04/2012 01:09 PM, Harsh Bora wrote:
On 10/04/2012 09:17 PM, Deepak C Shetty wrote:
On 10/04/2012 07:01 PM, Harsh Prateek Bora wrote:
Qemu accepts gluster protocol as supported storage backend beside
others.
This patch allows users to specify disks on gluster backends like this:

      <disk type='network' device='disk'>
        <driver name='qemu' type='raw'/>
        <source protocol='gluster' name='volume/image'>
          <host name='example.org' port='6000' transport='tcp'/>

+                    <attribute name="transport">
+                      <choice>
+                        <value>tcp</value>
+                        <value>unix</value>
+                        <value>rdma</value>
+                      </choice>
+                    </attribute>
'transport' attribute is optional, so it should be placed inside
<optional> </optional> ?

Not necessarily, <zeroOrMore> works for it. You may want to test the
patch without specifying 'transport' attribute!

Deepak is right - the <attribute name="transport"> block must be
embedded in an <optional> block.  <zeroOrMore> only applies to elements,
but as written, your zeroOrMore says that it is okay to omit the overall
<host> element, but that if you provide a <host> element, it MUST have a
transport='...' attribute, and that is not correct.  For back-compat
reasons, ALL new attributes must be in an <optional> block since older
clients of the XML did not provide the new attributes.

Looking at the grammar, it appeared to me like what you said, however, when I tested the patch, zeroOrMore worked successfully for the transport attribute as well. However, I am willing to use <optional> block for consistency.



I chose to check for only ':' to decide if its a IPv6 addr because it
doesnt make sense to be partial towards '.' What if someone specifies a
host name like 12:12;12,12 or 23:23,23,23 ? A '.' in an IPv6 addr is as
bad as any other invalid char.

'.' is valid in IPv6 addr.  But yes, ':' is mandatory in IPv6, and
forbidden in IPv4, so it makes a good distinguishing test between the
two families.

So, are you suggesting to validate IPv4 only and that too based on the absence of ':' and presence of '.'? Does that really suffice to validate an IPv4 since any other special character is also an invalid separator for IPv4 ?

regards,
Harsh




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