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

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] qemu: don't refuse to undefine a guest with NVRAM file



24.02.2015 13:12, Daniel P. Berrange пишет:

The undefine operation should always be allowed to succeed
regardless of whether any NVRAM file exists. ie we should
not force the application to use the VIR_DOMAIN_UNDEFINE_NVRAM
flag. It is valid for the app to decide it wants the NVRAM
file left on disk, in the same way that disk images are left
on disk at undefine.
---
  src/qemu/qemu_driver.c | 20 +++++++-------------
  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_driver.c b/src/qemu/qemu_driver.c
index bec05d4..302bf48 100644
--- a/src/qemu/qemu_driver.c
+++ b/src/qemu/qemu_driver.c
@@ -6985,19 +6985,13 @@ qemuDomainUndefineFlags(virDomainPtr dom,
if (!virDomainObjIsActive(vm) &&
          vm->def->os.loader && vm->def->os.loader->nvram &&
-        virFileExists(vm->def->os.loader->nvram)) {
-        if (!(flags & VIR_DOMAIN_UNDEFINE_NVRAM)) {
-            virReportError(VIR_ERR_OPERATION_INVALID, "%s",
-                           _("cannot delete inactive domain with nvram"));
-            goto cleanup;
-        }
-
-        if (unlink(vm->def->os.loader->nvram) < 0) {
-            virReportSystemError(errno,
-                                 _("failed to remove nvram: %s"),
-                                 vm->def->os.loader->nvram);
-            goto cleanup;
-        }
+        virFileExists(vm->def->os.loader->nvram) &&
+        (flags & VIR_DOMAIN_UNDEFINE_NVRAM) &&
+        (unlink(vm->def->os.loader->nvram) < 0)) {
+        virReportSystemError(errno,
+                             _("failed to remove nvram: %s"),
+                             vm->def->os.loader->nvram);
+        goto cleanup;
      }
if (virDomainDeleteConfig(cfg->configDir, cfg->autostartDir, vm) < 0)

As I found out the discussion followed this patch didn't come to a conclusion and this or any other patches on the matter weren't commited. We hit the problem with inability to undefine a domain leaving nvram untouched recently and this patch would solve it perfectly. I think it's worth commiting IMHO and maybe the documentation should reflect this slight change in behavior.
Any new thoughts?

Maxim


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