Revert baa7044 #797
Merged
Revert baa7044 #797
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
MarkSymsCtx
force-pushed
the
revert_baa7044
branch
from
1088756 to
319ee40
Compare
LunfanZhang
approved these changes
Jan 26, 2026
TimSmithCtx
approved these changes
Jan 26, 2026
Contributor
|
The fix have been made and is pushed on our branch xcp-ng:upstream-use-vhd-header-for-block-size in commit 9ce01d1. It should be good for review once the PR is back open. I managed to reproduce the issue and tested the fix on a raw VDI on a LVM SR. I managed to run several commands (create, resize, scan, destroy...) without any issue. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The commit baa7044 introduced regressions in functionality around the use of
rawVDIs on LVM SRs. It is therefore being reverted until it can be reworked to not cause these regressions.@Millefeuille42 I will reopen your original PR, can you please pick it back up and address the issues? Possibly something in the
block_sizemethod needing to check the VDI type before callingvhdutil. In the failures that we've seen we have traces where we can see thatvhdutilhas tried, unsuccessfully, to read arawVDI and thus caused the outer operation to fail. Disaster Recovery functionality was affected as well as various positive and negative tests around use ofrawVDIs