On Fri, 15 Jul 2011, Stefan Bader wrote:
> On 14.07.2011 19:34, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Jul 2011, Stefan Bader wrote:
> >> Before this a block device defined as hda1 in the configuration files
> >> would be mapped to hda, as well as hda2.
> > Don't you mean xvda and xvda2?
> Bah, yes, you are right. I had a "hda1" in a PVM guests definition and within
> the guest it had become "xvda". Basically it seems that the current code would
> map any minor number between 0-63 to 0.
That would be correct because hda1 is not allowed, the closest thing to
a valid configuration would be hda and therefore xvda.
> > Besides hda1 doesn't mean anything for an HVM guest, it is not an
> > allowed disk configuration.
> > It is also a bug in the toolstack that propagates such nonsense to
> > xenstore so I would rather fix xend and/or libxenlight.
> Which seems actually to be something that could be intentional for HVM guests.
> As you say, "hdaX" does make no sense there... Unfortunately this is shared
> PVM and HVM. So my change may make sense with the first but not the latter...
I see. The source of the problem is ancient disk configuration lines in
PV config files: like Ian wrote before, people should be using xvd* only
in PV guests config file, rather than hd* or sd*...
I think the best thing to do here would be to catch the error at the
Xen-devel mailing list