On 12/1/20 3:46 PM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
On 11/24/20 8:20 PM, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
Move 'labelsize' validation to virDomainMemoryDefPostParse().
Signed-off-by: Daniel Henrique Barboza <danielhb...@gmail.com>
---
src/conf/domain_conf.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/conf/domain_conf.c b/src/conf/domain_conf.c
index b1534dcc1e..5e5905f483 100644
--- a/src/conf/domain_conf.c
+++ b/src/conf/domain_conf.c
@@ -5363,15 +5363,28 @@ static int
virDomainMemoryDefPostParse(virDomainMemoryDefPtr mem,
const virDomainDef *def)
{
- /* Although only the QEMU driver implements PPC64 support, this
- * code is related to the platform specification (PAPR), i.e. it
- * is hypervisor agnostic, and any future PPC64 hypervisor driver
- * will have the same restriction.
- */
- if (ARCH_IS_PPC64(def->os.arch) &&
- mem->model == VIR_DOMAIN_MEMORY_MODEL_NVDIMM &&
- virDomainNVDimmAlignSizePseries(mem) < 0)
- return -1;
+ if (mem->model == VIR_DOMAIN_MEMORY_MODEL_NVDIMM) {
+ if (mem->labelsize && mem->labelsize < 128) {
+ virReportError(VIR_ERR_CONFIG_UNSUPPORTED, "%s",
+ _("nvdimm label must be at least 128KiB"));
+ return -1;
+ }
+
+ if (mem->labelsize >= mem->size) {
+ virReportError(VIR_ERR_CONFIG_UNSUPPORTED, "%s",
+ _("label size must be smaller than NVDIMM size"));
+ return -1;
+ }
+
+ /* Although only the QEMU driver implements PPC64 support, this
+ * code is related to the platform specification (PAPR), i.e. it
+ * is hypervisor agnostic, and any future PPC64 hypervisor driver
+ * will have the same restriction.
+ */
+ if (ARCH_IS_PPC64(def->os.arch) &&
+ virDomainNVDimmAlignSizePseries(mem) < 0)
+ return -1;
+ }
For this and the rest of patches - shouldn't changes like this go into validator
callback? I view post parse callbacks as "fill missing values" not a place to
check if configuration makes sense/is valid.
You mean these callbacks?
---- domain_conf.h ----
/* validation callbacks */
virDomainDefValidateCallback domainValidateCallback;
virDomainDeviceDefValidateCallback deviceValidateCallback;
These callbacks makes sense for driver specific validations, but for what
we're doing here is driver agnostic (well, most of it anyway - probably
there are QEMU specific stuff mixed in).
If we move this logic to say qemuValidateDomainDeviceDef(), then we'll need
to compensate the other drivers that won't have access to these validations
(git grep tells me it's bhyve and vz_driver). Granted, we can put these in
an unique function and use them in the callback for all the drivers, if that's
the case.
Thanks,
DHB
Michal
