Saving the dom0 patch for last :-)
On 6/15/07, Daniel Veillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 11:27:21PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 05:06:16PM -0400, Mark Johnson wrote: > > This is another patch which may not be popular? Xen's > > extra version does not fit in libvirt's release field (since it's > > part of an int). > > > > Instead of printing out the wrong value, just display > > major.minor in virsh. > > Hmm, so with Xen we have two backend impls of the Version API, one talking > to the hypervisor which only ever returns the first 2 components, and the > other talking to XenD which processes all 3. > > As you say, in practice the extra version from Xen is effectively garbage > > So while as root I see > > # virsh version > Compiled against library: libvir 0.2.2 > Using library: libvir 0.2.2 > Using API: Xen 3.0.1 > Running hypervisor: Xen 3.1.0 > > If run as non-root I instead seee > > $ virsh version > Compiled against library: libvir 0.2.2 > Using library: libvir 0.2.2 > Using API: Xen 3.0.1 > Running hypervisor: Xen 3.730.259 > > > I think instead of this patch to change the virsh driver though, we should > change teh xend_internal.c file to ignore the extra_version data from XenD > as there's no way to meaningfully interpret it as an int. Agreed, let's fix at the source instead of just dropping the data in the user land tool. I'm more concerned by getting the API right.
I'm not sure where to go from here.. Is the suggestion to change xend_internal/xen_internal to not set rev and remove the display of the hypervisor rev in virsh? Or is it something else? Thanks, Mark -- Libvir-list mailing list Libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
