[libvirt] [PATCH 02/13] Move daemon-related parts of virNetServer to virNetDaemon

[Daniel P. Berrange]

On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 10:19:36PM -0700, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> This allows to have more servers in one daemon which helps isolating
> some resources.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Martin Kletzander <mkletzan at redhat.com>
> ---
>  daemon/libvirtd.c                  | 101 ++---
>  docs/internals.html.in             |   4 +-
>  docs/internals/rpc.html.in         |   7 +
>  po/POTFILES.in                     |   1 +
>  src/Makefile.am                    |   1 +
>  src/libvirt_remote.syms            |  28 +-
>  src/locking/lock_daemon.c          |  63 ++--
>  src/locking/lock_daemon_config.c   |   2 +-
>  src/locking/lock_daemon_dispatch.c |   4 +-
>  src/lxc/lxc_controller.c           |  65 ++--
>  src/rpc/virnetdaemon.c             | 746 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  src/rpc/virnetdaemon.h             |  82 ++++
>  src/rpc/virnetserver.c             | 526 ++++----------------------
>  src/rpc/virnetserver.h             |  46 +--
>  src/rpc/virnetserverprogram.h      |   3 +
>  15 files changed, 1074 insertions(+), 605 deletions(-)
>  create mode 100644 src/rpc/virnetdaemon.c
>  create mode 100644 src/rpc/virnetdaemon.h

I like the split of this, but I'm concerned we might have a regression in
the exec-restart feature. eg if we start an exec-restart with old libvirt
and complete it with new libvirt, I'm not sure we're backwards compatible
in handling the JSON file data. I see we don't have any unit testing to
let us check that, so I'm going to write a unit test for exactly this.

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: http://berrange.com      -o-    http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org              -o-             http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org       -o-         http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org       -o-       http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|