On Thu, 2015-12-17 at 17:06 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > Signed-off-by: Ian Jackson <ian.jack...@eu.citrix.com> > --- > mg-schema-test-database | 14 ++++++++++++-- > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mg-schema-test-database b/mg-schema-test-database > index a4cb732..4e0ee68 100755 > --- a/mg-schema-test-database > +++ b/mg-schema-test-database > @@ -448,12 +448,22 @@ END > done > > # As we copy, we note everything we're not borrowing as > - # belonging to the parent db. > + # belonging to the parent db. We borrow shares of a shared > + # resource. If we borrow only some rather than all of the > + # shares, neither DB will be able to unshare it.
This is what actually happens, rather than this comment explaining a thing we are avoiding, right? I ask because although the text (and the use of "properly" in the subject) seems pretty clear it's the former I was surprised to find this code was borrowing partial shares and therefore setting up such a situation. Given the caveat below would it not be better to just never allow this? I suppose that given the list of tasks to borrow came from the user this might be considered a "keep both pieces" situation. > + > + # In principle it might be possible to actually use different > + # shares of the same resource with different dbs. However the > + # `sharetype' contains the osstest revision, which prevents > + # sharing between test and real versions of osstest code. > + > cat >>$t.import <<END > $(make_xdbref_task $maindbname 'not borrowed' '' PARENT) > UPDATE resources > SET owntaskid = $(taskid xdbref $maindbname) > - WHERE owntaskid != $(borrowtaskid $task); > + WHERE owntaskid != $(borrowtaskid $task) > + AND owntaskid != $(taskid magic shared) > + AND owntaskid != $(taskid magic preparing); > COMMIT; > END > _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
