Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] fix "xm block-detach 0 ..." for extended

>>> On 19.11.10 at 18:56, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Jan Beulich writes ("[Xen-devel] [PATCH] fix "xm block-detach 0 ..." for 
> extended-ID devices"):
>> Simply taking stat()'s st_rdev doesn't work here, as the minor is
>> split into two parts, the major is present, and the "extended" bit
>> isn't set.
> ...
>> @@ -20,7 +20,11 @@ def blkdev_name_to_number(name):
>> -        return (devname, os.stat(n).st_rdev)
> 
> This seems to me to be entirely wrong.  When you block detach you
> should be providing the device name according to the Xen guest device
> naming scheme, not a local device path (which may have different major
> and minor numbers).
>
> If you just remove the try/except block and always use the following
> code, does it work correctly ?

Yes.

Since the code is there presumably for a reason, I didn't dare
to suggest removing it altogether.

Jan


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

<Prev in Thread]

Current Thread

[Next in Thread>

Previous by Date:

Re: [Xen-devel] How EPT translates an X86_32 guest physical address?, Superymk

Next by Date:

Re: [Xen-devel] How EPT translates an X86_32 guest physical address?, Superymk

Previous by Thread:

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] fix "xm block-detach 0 ..." for extended-ID devices, Ian Jackson

Next by Thread:

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] fix "xm block-detach 0 ..." for extended-ID devices, Ian Jackson

Indexes:

[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]