RE: [Xen-cim] Patch for review

["Subrahmanian, Raj" <raj.subrahmanian@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Jim,
I thought I had fixed this.
I will take a look.
Thanks
Raj 

-----Original Message-----
From: xen-cim-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:xen-cim-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Fehlig
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 9:34 PM
To: Szymanski, Lukasz K
Cc: xen-cim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Xen-cim] Patch for review

Szymanski, Lukasz K wrote:

> Hello All -
>
> This patch adapts Raj's Xen_HostedComputerSystem patch to other
> Xen_Hosted* files:
>
> Xen_HostedDisk.mof, Xen_HostedDisk.c, Xen_HostedProcessor.mof, 
> Xen_HostedProcessor.mof, Xen_HostedMemory.mof, Xen_HostedMemory.c, 
> Xen_HostedNetworkPort.mof, Xen_HostedNetworkPort.c
>

The problem with this patch, and Raj's previous one apparently :-), is
that there is no filtering of object paths returned via upcalls to cimom
for instance names of the associated thing.  For example, in
ReferenceNames() in Xen_HostedMemory.c we make an upcall to get all
instances of CIM_Memory when it is the target class.  But Xen_Memory is
a subclass of CIM_Memory so you get instances of Xen_Memory (which is
the source class) and associate it with itself or other instances of
Xen_Memory for other domains.  If I list associations of Xen_Memory for
domain 1 using this patch, I get a Xen_HostedMemory association for each
Xen_Memory object produced by other domains.

Make sense?  I'm quite tired now so this may be a smoked explanation
:-).

Thanks,
Jim


_______________________________________________
Xen-cim mailing list
Xen-cim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-cim

_______________________________________________
Xen-cim mailing list
Xen-cim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-cim