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

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] test_driver: implement virDomainSetLifecycleAction



On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 3:55 PM Erik Skultety <eskultet redhat com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 11:51:05AM +0200, Ilias Stamatis wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Ilias Stamatis <stamatis iliass gmail com>
> > ---
> >  src/test/test_driver.c | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 58 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/src/test/test_driver.c b/src/test/test_driver.c
> > index aae9875194..71d6baa3da 100755
> > --- a/src/test/test_driver.c
> > +++ b/src/test/test_driver.c
> > @@ -7404,6 +7404,63 @@ testDomainMemoryPeek(virDomainPtr dom,
> >  }
> >
> >
> > +static void
> > +testDomainModifyLifecycleAction(virDomainDefPtr def,
> > +                                virDomainLifecycle type,
> > +                                virDomainLifecycleAction action)
> > +{
> > +    switch (type) {
> > +    case VIR_DOMAIN_LIFECYCLE_POWEROFF:
> > +        def->onPoweroff = action;
> > +        break;
> > +    case VIR_DOMAIN_LIFECYCLE_REBOOT:
> > +        def->onReboot = action;
> > +        break;
> > +    case VIR_DOMAIN_LIFECYCLE_CRASH:
> > +        def->onCrash = action;
> > +        break;
> > +    case VIR_DOMAIN_LIFECYCLE_LAST:
> > +        break;
> > +    }
> > +}
> > +
> > +
> > +static int
> > +testDomainSetLifecycleAction(virDomainPtr dom,
> > +                             unsigned int type,
> > +                             unsigned int action,
> > +                             unsigned int flags)
> > +{
> > +    virDomainObjPtr vm = NULL;
> > +    virDomainDefPtr def = NULL;
> > +    virDomainDefPtr persistentDef = NULL;
> > +    int ret = -1;
> > +
> > +    virCheckFlags(VIR_DOMAIN_AFFECT_LIVE |
> > +                  VIR_DOMAIN_AFFECT_CONFIG, -1);
> > +
> > +    if (!virDomainDefLifecycleActionAllowed(type, action))
> > +        return -1;
> > +
> > +    if (!(vm = testDomObjFromDomain(dom)))
> > +        return -1;
> > +
> > +    if (virDomainObjGetDefs(vm, flags, &def, &persistentDef) < 0)
>
> We should use virDomainObjGetOneDef instead.

I think not. Because the 2 flags aren't mutually exclusive for this
API. So the user might want to affect both the persistent and the live
config at the same time with a single call.

What do you think?

>
> > +        goto cleanup;
> > +
> > +    if (def)
> > +        testDomainModifyLifecycleAction(def, type, action);
> > +
> > +    if (persistentDef)
> > +        testDomainModifyLifecycleAction(persistentDef, type, action);
>
> We'll need to make use of private data here too, if I set:
> type=poweroff
> action=restart
>
> the test domain needs to change states accordingly, IOW running->running,
> right now we merely modified the XML which is not enough.
>
> Erik

Right. A v2 is in the works.

Thanks,
Ilias


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