1. [PATCH] blktap2: blktap2 and pygrub (xen-unstable)
diff -r a672af698bc3 tools/python/xen/xend/XendDomainInfo.py
--- a/tools/python/xen/xend/XendDomainInfo.py Fri Jul 09 12:35:58 2010 +0100
+++ b/tools/python/xen/xend/XendDomainInfo.py Sun Jul 11 17:16:39 2010 +0400
@@ -3261,6 +3261,7 @@
taptype = blkdev_uname_to_taptype(disk)
mounted = devtype in ['tap', 'tap2'] and taptype != 'aio' and taptype != 'sync' and not os.stat(fn).st_rdev
+ mounted_vbd_uuid = 0
if mounted:
# This is a file, not a
device. pygrub can cope with a
# file if it's raw, but if it's QCOW or other such formats
@@ -3276,7 +3277,8 @@
from xen.xend import XendDomain
dom0 = XendDomain.instance().privilegedDomain()
- dom0._waitForDeviceUUID(dom0.create_vbd(vbd, disk))
+ mounted_vbd_uuid = dom0.create_vbd(vbd, disk);
+
dom0._waitForDeviceUUID(mounted_vbd_uuid)
fn = BOOTLOADER_LOOPBACK_DEVICE
try:
@@ -3286,8 +3288,9 @@
if mounted:
log.info("Unmounting %s from %s." %
(fn, BOOTLOADER_LOOPBACK_DEVICE))
-
- dom0.destroyDevice('tap',
BOOTLOADER_LOOPBACK_DEVICE)
+ _, vbd_info = dom0.info['devices'][mounted_vbd_uuid]
+ dom0.destroyDevice(dom0.getBlockDeviceClass(vbd_info['devid']),
+ BOOTLOADER_LOOPBACK_DEVICE, force = True)
if blcfg is None:
msg = "Had a bootloader specified, but can't find disk"
2. [PATCH] blktap/blktap2: Fix for
incorrect parse disk configuration (xen-unstable)
diff -r a672af698bc3 tools/python/xen/util/blkif.py
--- a/tools/python/xen/util/blkif.py Fri Jul 09 12:35:58 2010 +0100
+++ b/tools/python/xen/util/blkif.py Sun Jul 11 12:13:34 2010 +0400
@@ -87,7 +87,10 @@
fn = "/dev/%s" %(fn,)
if typ in ("tap", "tap2"):
- (taptype, fn) = fn.split(":", 1)
+ if fn.count(":") == 1:
+ (taptype, fn) = fn.split(":",
1)
+ else:
+ (taptype, fn) = fn.split(":", 2)[1:3]
return (fn, taptype)
def blkdev_uname_to_file(uname):
I've tested this patches. They make things working for NexexentaStor 3.0.2 xen image
with "vhd" files and pygrub as bootloader at Xen 4.1-unstable ( tip CS) & 2.6.32.16 Dom0
on top of Ubuntu 10.04 Server.
Per exeCooler :-
process of booting DomU with 'mounted-blktap2' (VHD for example) and 'pygrub' as bootloader:
1. Connect boot-device to Dom0 as '/dev/xpvd'
2. Pygrub get info for load DomU
3. Disconnect boot-device from Dom0
4. Boot DomU
During step 3 created device disconnecting from Dom0, but xenstore does not scrape away after device disconnected from Dom0 => result:
"Error: Device /dev/xvdp (51952, tap2) is already connected."
During step 3 created device disconnecting from Dom0, but 'destroyDevice' method is passed 'tap' always => result:
"Error: Device 51952 not connected"
Boris.
P.S. It's just a reminder of content been already posted by exeCooler to xen-devel mailing list.
--- On Mon, 7/12/10, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] CS 21556 (blktap2: Fix tapdisk disktype issues) is no longer working for "vhd" [and 1 more messages]
To: "eXeC001er" <execooler@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Boris Derzhavets" <bderzhavets@xxxxxxxxx>, "Keir Fraser"
<keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Monday, July 12, 2010, 1:01 PM
Boris Derzhavets writes ("[Xen-devel] CS 21556 (blktap2: Fix tapdisk disktype issues) is no longer working for "vhd""):
> In about the most recent 4-5 days an error :
This is related to 21541:7ff0e885b5c3 and 21728:51160a8ecf7d.
> root@ServerLSX:~/NexentaStor-Community-3.0.2# xm create -c nexentastor-community-3.0.2-xen.cfg
> Using config file "./nexentastor-community-3.0.2-xen.cfg".
> Error: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: 'vhd:/root/NexentaStor-Community-3.0.2/syspool.img'
>
> has been brought back under xen-unstable.
Does this work in 4.0-testing ?
eXeC001er writes ("[Xen-devel] Re: CS 21556 (blktap2: Fix tapdisk disktype issues) is no longer working for "vhd""):
> My patch was not quite correct. I waited until the return change back to
> make a new one.
> The new
patch will be ready today or tomorrow. Let's see how will the
> situation was.
Thanks. As I wrote earlier:
Can I ask you to try to (a) separate out these patches, and (b)
explain the reasoning behind them in more detail ? If you can
provide a separate message with a separate patch for each change,
with an explanation at greater length, it will be much easier for us
to evaluate them. Thanks.
Thanks,
Ian.
|
