After commit a693fdb 'vol-dumpxml' missed the ability to show backingStore
information. This commit adds a volume type for files that fixes this
problem.

Resolves: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529663

Signed-off-by: Julio Faracco <jcfaracco@gmail.com>
---
 src/storage/storage_util.c | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/src/storage/storage_util.c b/src/storage/storage_util.c
index 899a557..9e1b63a 100644
--- a/src/storage/storage_util.c
+++ b/src/storage/storage_util.c
@@ -1957,6 +1957,8 @@ virStorageBackendUpdateVolTargetInfoFD(virStorageSourcePtr target,
     target->timestamps->ctime = get_stat_ctime(sb);
     target->timestamps->mtime = get_stat_mtime(sb);
 
+    target->type = VIR_STORAGE_TYPE_FILE;
+
     VIR_FREE(target->perms->label);
 
 #if WITH_SELINUX
-- 
2.7.4

--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list

Hi guys,

Any possibility to include a test case for this scenario?

2018-01-02 16:52 GMT-02:00 Julio Faracco <jcfaracco@gmail.com>:
> After commit a693fdb 'vol-dumpxml' missed the ability to show backingStore
> information. This commit adds a volume type for files that fixes this
> problem.
>
> Resolves: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529663
>
> Signed-off-by: Julio Faracco <jcfaracco@gmail.com>
> ---
>  src/storage/storage_util.c | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/src/storage/storage_util.c b/src/storage/storage_util.c
> index 899a557..9e1b63a 100644
> --- a/src/storage/storage_util.c
> +++ b/src/storage/storage_util.c
> @@ -1957,6 +1957,8 @@ virStorageBackendUpdateVolTargetInfoFD(virStorageSourcePtr target,
>      target->timestamps->ctime = get_stat_ctime(sb);
>      target->timestamps->mtime = get_stat_mtime(sb);
>
> +    target->type = VIR_STORAGE_TYPE_FILE;
> +
>      VIR_FREE(target->perms->label);
>
>  #if WITH_SELINUX
> --
> 2.7.4
>

--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list

On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 16:53:13 -0200, Julio Faracco wrote:
> Hi guys,
> 
> Any possibility to include a test case for this scenario?

You can look into adding it to virstoragetest if you want to pursue
adding the test.

I'll push this patch in the meanwhile.
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list