Bug 783240 - Make virt-v2v work on Red Hat Cluster Suite guests (RHEL 5 Xen using xm, no libvirt)
Summary: Make virt-v2v work on Red Hat Cluster Suite guests (RHEL 5 Xen using xm, no l...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED CANTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6
Classification: Red Hat
Component: virt-v2v
Version: 6.3
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: rc
: ---
Assignee: Matthew Booth
QA Contact: Virtualization Bugs
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On: 769506
Blocks: 782183 840699 852442 869585 878463
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2012-01-19 18:17 UTC by Eric Blake
Modified: 2018-11-30 22:37 UTC (History)
17 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of: 769506
: 852442 (view as bug list)
Environment:
Last Closed: 2013-02-12 14:55:33 UTC
Target Upstream Version:


Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Knowledge Base (Solution) 152583 0 None None None Never

Description Eric Blake 2012-01-19 18:17:58 UTC
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #769506 +++

Description of problem:
As usual, users are very confused for what's the 'format' argument for 'domxml-from-native' and 'domxml-to-native' commands, then they often try some obvious values of 'xen' or 'xm' for a xen domain, 'qemu' for a qemu domain, however, they don't work. 

Because libvirt defines some internal 'format' value, but virsh help or virsh man page doesn't tell users these, so we need to improve virsh document, this bug is used for tracing the issue.

...

--- Additional comment from eblake on 2012-01-18 14:50:37 MST ---

An additional upstream patch idea was proposed for further improving things:

https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2012-January/msg00604.html

This would add the 'virsh domxml-formats' command to list the formats supported by each hypervisor.  The v1 proposal added a new API, but comments on that thread suggested that using hypervisor capability xml would be sufficient instead, and I am still working on a v2 proposal.  Should we reopen this bug to include those improvements?

--- Additional comment from dallan on 2012-01-18 19:42:25 MST ---

No, open a separate BZ.

Comment 1 Eric Blake 2012-01-19 18:22:07 UTC
If we went with the proposed v1 patch, it is an API addition and must be in the 0.9.10 release.  But if we go with the proposed v2 idea of reusing capability XML, then there is no API change and can be added post-0.9.10.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.