On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 01:42:10PM -0600, Jim Fehlig wrote:
> Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 11:16:27AM -0600, Jim Fehlig wrote:
> >> Yes, I was not sure what this patch was attempting to fix either. There
> >> was some discussion about the patch in this thread
> >>
> >> http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/2007-05/msg00887.html
> >>
> >
> > Ok, so if I follow that correctly, the crux of the issue is that it was
> > possible to start 2 unmanaged domains with same name and same uuid. So
> > I think we can probably address that by checking for UUID, and the only
> > if both are running, also check for domid match. So really a combo of
> > both the original & current code.
> >
>
> Unstable, but not 3.1.1, also has
>
> http://xenbits2.xensource.com/xen-unstable.hg?rev/207582c8d88b
>
> I did a little testing on a 3.1-based system that includes the above c/s
> and your reversion of c/s 15124. No problems noticed testing create,
> new, reboot, save, restore. Did not test migration or hvm guests. So
> perhaps reverting 15124 is fine for unstable but not sure about 3.1.1
> *without* c/s 15642.
Yep, I just tested 3.1.1 with 15124 reverted, and 15642 applied and it copes
with the use cases I have. So I'd reckon on making those two changes to the
3.1-testing tree would be sufficient.
Regards,
Dan.
--
|=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston. +1 978 392 2496 -=|
|=- Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ -=|
|=- Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/ -=|
|=- GnuPG: 7D3B9505 F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 -=|
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home