Bug 1908250

Summary:	Expose reading and writing LVB in the python bindings
Product:	Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8	Reporter:	Benny Zlotnik <bzlotnik>
Component:	sanlock	Assignee:	David Teigland <teigland>
Status:	CLOSED ERRATA	QA Contact:	cluster-qe <cluster-qe>
Severity:	unspecified	Docs Contact:
Priority:	high
Version:	8.3	CC:	aefrat, agk, cluster-maint, cmarthal, jbrassow, teigland, tnisan
Target Milestone:	rc	Keywords:	Triaged, ZStream
Target Release:	8.4
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:	sanlock-3.8.3-1.el8	Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:
Clones:	1920150 (view as bug list)		Environment:
Last Closed:	2021-05-18 15:09:01 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:
Bug Blocks:	1920150

Description Benny Zlotnik 2020-12-16 08:26:27 UTC

Description of problem:
Vdsm needs to use get/set_lvb in order for RHV to support copying of images not managed by Vdsm, like Managed Block Storage volumes.

Support in the bindings was added in the following patchset[1]

[1] https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/sanlock-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org/thread/ZFKKAHPBZCIJ5ZF45X5IV7ILK7AIMXYQ/



Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


How reproducible:


Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.

Actual results:


Expected results:


Additional info:

Comment 2 David Teigland 2021-01-06 16:10:26 UTC

This needs a qa ack from RHV QA to be approved for 8.4 first, then we can look at 8.3.z.

Comment 3 Benny Zlotnik 2021-01-20 13:00:02 UTC

Avihai, will your team be able to approve this? The verification is simple as we already have test that use the actual daemon

Otherwise, I can verify it myself, as this does not change any behavior in sanlock, it only adds new bindings which need to be used by vdsm

Comment 4 Avihai 2021-01-25 12:03:26 UTC

(In reply to Benny Zlotnik from comment #3)
> Avihai, will your team be able to approve this? The verification is simple
> as we already have test that use the actual daemon
> 
> Otherwise, I can verify it myself, as this does not change any behavior in
> sanlock, it only adds new bindings which need to be used by vdsm

Comment 5 Tal Nisan 2021-01-25 14:31:55 UTC

Basically the added functionality is a new one, on QE side what is needed to verify is that there are no regressions in the old functionality while the new functionality will be verified along with the new RFE addition to MBS

Comment 6 Avihai 2021-01-25 14:46:47 UTC

(In reply to David Teigland from comment #2)
> This needs a qa ack from RHV QA to be approved for 8.4 first, then we can
> look at 8.3.z.

ACK from RHV QA granted :)

Comment 13 errata-xmlrpc 2021-05-18 15:09:01 UTC

Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory (sanlock bug fix and enhancement update), and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2021:1711