Re: [Libguestfs] [PATCH] v2v: parse_libvirt_xml: number disks from 0 (RHBZ#1615885)

On Tuesday, 14 August 2018 17:44:30 CEST Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 05:32:08PM +0200, Pino Toscano wrote: > > On Tuesday, 14 August 2018 16:53:02 CEST Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 04:04:10PM +0200, Pino Toscano wrote: > > > > When parsing the libvirt XML, make sure to assign the IDs for disks > > > > (s_disk_id) from 0 instead of 1, just like all the other input modes not > > > > based on libvirt XML. > > > > --- > > > > v2v/parse_libvirt_xml.ml | 2 +- > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/v2v/parse_libvirt_xml.ml b/v2v/parse_libvirt_xml.ml > > > > index 78a6e71c0..dac99511c 100644 > > > > --- a/v2v/parse_libvirt_xml.ml > > > > +++ b/v2v/parse_libvirt_xml.ml > > > > @@ -246,7 +246,7 @@ let parse_libvirt_xml ?conn xml = > > > > (* Non-removable disk devices. *) > > > > let disks = > > > > let get_disks, add_disk = > > > > - let disks = ref [] and i = ref 0 in > > > > + let disks = ref [] and i = ref (-1) in > > > > let get_disks () = List.rev !disks in > > > > let add_disk qemu_uri format controller p_source = > > > > incr i; > > > > > > NACK. The s_disk_id field is supposed to just be a unique ID and > > > -i libvirt is giving it a unique value here so it's not wrong. > > > > I did not say it is wrong, just that the way IDs are allocated here > > is different than in other input modes. > > Well sure you can commit this patch, but it's not a fix for the BZ > (although it may incidentally fix it). We still need my patch to fix > the cause of the bug. Sure, at this point mine is mostly cosmetics. > > > The problem with this bug is that the output driver used the s_disk_id > > > field assuming it was a unique, monotonically increasing number > > > counting from 0. (See my other patch to fix that) > > > > OK, this I can agree with. Would it be possible to add this paragraph > > to the commit message of the patch? > > Yes, and remove (RHBZ#...) from the title. Sorry, I mean adding this paragraph to the commit message of your patch, i.e. that fixes the output of rhv-upload to not rely on that (broken) assumption.