Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH OSSTEST v2 08/18] Toolstack: Refactor guest lifecycle.

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 2015-01-20 at 18:32 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Campbell writes ("[PATCH OSSTEST v2 08/18] Toolstack: Refactor guest 
> lifecycle."):
> > Implement destory/create as per toolstack methods, including implementing 
> > the
> > libvirt version which previously didn't work. To do this we use the virsh
> > capability to convert an xl/xm style config file into the correct XML.
> > 
> > xend basically calls into the xl helper since they are compatible.
> > 
> > xl/x, uses ->{Command} which will eventually become private.
> ...
> > diff --git a/ts-guest-saverestore b/ts-guest-saverestore
> > index 9e04ae9..8911aed 100755
> > --- a/ts-guest-saverestore
> > +++ b/ts-guest-saverestore
> > @@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ sub restore () {
> >                 toolstack($ho)->{Command}
> >                 ." restore "
> >                 .(toolstack($ho)->{RestoreNeedsConfig} ?
> > -                 $r{ $gho->{Guest}.'_'. toolstack($ho)->{CfgPathVar} } : 
> > '')
> > +                 $gho->{CfgPath} : '')
> >                 ." image", 200);
> 
> This hunk doesn't seem to be covered by the commit message ?

Indeed, not sure what was going on there. I was a bit confused about the
CfgPathVar during early iterations of the series.

> > -    target_cmd_root($ho, $cmd, 30);
> > +    toolstack($ho)->create($r{ $gho->{Guest}.'_'. 
> > toolstack($ho)->{CfgPathVar} });
> 
> Perhaps the toolstack create method should take the $gho rather than
> the config file pathname, like the destroy method does ?

Yes. In fact towards the end of the series I end up arranging that
$gho->{CfgPath} is consistently useful. Since reordering these API
changes is a bit error prone I'd prefer to add a patch onto the end
which reworks the create method's interface to just take $gho. I hope
that's ok.

Ian.


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel