On 7/8/19 2:40 AM, Peter Krempa wrote:
On Fri, Jul 05, 2019 at 23:37:29 -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
> The docs talked about an active snapshot when they meant an active
> domain; they also claimed the flag was a no-op for hypervisors with no
> snapshot metadata even though the flag is rejected as unrecognized for
> hypervisors with no snapshot support at all.
>
> Reported-by: Peter Krempa <pkrempa(a)redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake(a)redhat.com>
> ---
> src/libvirt-domain.c | 9 +++++----
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
I'd probably go for the trivial addition of the flag to all of the
undefine APIs since that does not require clients from encoding the
knowledge whether the given hypervisor supports snapshots at all.
I can do that as well. But as you observed, if you have a new virsh
talking to an old libvirtd, it doesn't help, and I don't see a problem
with the current documentation wording even if other drivers (silently)
accept and ignore the flag.
This works too though as we'd reject the flag at this point anyways.
ACK
I'll post a followup mail for review on adding no-op support in the
remaining domains.
--
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3226
Virtualization:
qemu.org |
libvirt.org