Hi Juergen,
On 18/01/2023 06:23, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 17.01.23 23:36, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Juergen,
On 17/01/2023 09:11, Juergen Gross wrote:
Today check_store() is only testing the correctness of the node tree.
Add verification of the accounting data (number of nodes) and correct
NIT: one too many space before 'and'.
the data if it is wrong.
Do the initial check_store() call only after Xenstore entries of a
live update have been read.
Can you clarify whether this is needed for the rest of the patch, or
simply a nice thing to have in general?
I'll add: "This is wanted to make sure the accounting data is correct after
a live update."
Fine with me.
Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgr...@suse.com>
---
tools/xenstore/xenstored_core.c | 62 ++++++++++++++++------
tools/xenstore/xenstored_domain.c | 86 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
tools/xenstore/xenstored_domain.h | 4 ++
3 files changed, 137 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/xenstore/xenstored_core.c
b/tools/xenstore/xenstored_core.c
index 3099077a86..e201f14053 100644
--- a/tools/xenstore/xenstored_core.c
+++ b/tools/xenstore/xenstored_core.c
@@ -2389,8 +2389,6 @@ void setup_structure(bool live_update)
manual_node("@introduceDomain", NULL);
domain_nbentry_fix(dom0_domid, 5, true);
}
-
- check_store();
}
static unsigned int hash_from_key_fn(void *k)
@@ -2433,20 +2431,28 @@ int remember_string(struct hashtable *hash,
const char *str)
* As we go, we record each node in the given reachable hashtable.
These
* entries will be used later in clean_store.
*/
+
+struct check_store_data {
+ struct hashtable *reachable;
+ struct hashtable *domains;
+};
+
static int check_store_step(const void *ctx, struct connection *conn,
struct node *node, void *arg)
{
- struct hashtable *reachable = arg;
+ struct check_store_data *data = arg;
- if (hashtable_search(reachable, (void *)node->name)) {
+ if (hashtable_search(data->reachable, (void *)node->name)) {
IIUC the cast is only necessary because hashtable_search() expects a
non-const value. I can't think for a reason for the key to be
non-const. So I will look to send a follow-up patch.
It is possible, but nasty, due to talloc_free() not taking a const pointer.
I am not sure I understand your reasoning. Looking at
hashtable_search(), I don't see a call to talloc_free().
Anyway, this is not directly related to this patch. So I will have a
look separately.
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
