[snip]
We've got other code in domain_conf.c that assigns ports
to the first available slot; for example, look near line 5628 at how
virtio-serial ports are assigned using maxport and traversal of all
previously assigned ports.
Is the code correct there?
The code is:
if (chr->info.type ==
VIR_DOMAIN_DEVICE_ADDRESS_TYPE_VIRTIO_SERIAL &&
chr->info.addr.vioserial.port == 0) {
int maxport = 0;
int j;
for (j = 0 ; j < i ; j++) {
virDomainChrDefPtr thischr = def->channels[j];
if (thischr->info.type ==
VIR_DOMAIN_DEVICE_ADDRESS_TYPE_VIRTIO_SERIAL &&
thischr->info.addr.vioserial.controller ==
chr->info.addr.vioserial.controller &&
thischr->info.addr.vioserial.bus ==
chr->info.addr.vioserial.bus &&
(int)thischr->info.addr.vioserial.port > maxport)
maxport = thischr->info.addr.vioserial.port;
}
chr->info.addr.vioserial.port = maxport + 1;
}
That is if it's found you're having maxport set to maximum value + 1,
that's fine but if it's not found it doesn't start from 0 but it starts
from number 1 since "chr->info.addr.vioserial.port = maxport + 1;" line.
Maxport is being set to 0 and when nothing is found then the code is
"chr->info.addr.vioserial.port = 0 + 1" therefore resulting into
"chr->info.addr.vioserial.port = 1;". Based on this it doesn't start
zero-based since this position (port = 0) is unassigned but only next
position (port = 1) is defined.
Is that behavior correct?
Thanks,
Michal
--
Michal Novotny<[email protected]>, RHCE
Virtualization Team (xen userspace), Red Hat
--
libvir-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
