On 10/27/2017 06:51 PM, Jiri Denemark wrote:
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 18:47:51 +0530, Madhu Pavan wrote:
> On 10/27/2017 02:51 PM, Jiri Denemark wrote:
>> I think this is actually a bit more complicated. When reverting to a
>> snapshot, when reverting a snapshot we should revert both active and
>> inactive configuration for backward compatibility and also because it
>> makes sense. Imagine you made a snapshot of a running domain, played
>> with the domain configuration and then reverted the state of the domain
>> to the snapshot. Once you shutdown the domain and start it again you'd
>> get a completely different machine. Of course, you actually may want
>> such behavior. Thus we can't really guess whether a user wants to revert
>> both active and inactive configuration or just one of them. The user
>> should be able to tell us what to do (and we should revert both configs
>> if no preference is given).
>>
>> However, for this to be really useful we need to store both active and
>> inactive configurations when creating a snapshot of a running domain.
> With the current behavior that I see from snapshot-list, I understood we
> categorize the snapshots
> as "Active (running, paused)" or "config(shutoff)" depending if
the
> snapshot was taken on an
> active or inactive domain. With my use case what I observed was that the
> revert of active
> snapshot actually overwriting inactive domain configuration. I thought
> only the "config" snapshot
> alone can overwrite the inactive domain configuration. Hence this patch.
> Are you suggesting we
> should have both active and inactive domain configurations to be saved
> for an active guest and
> restore (both by default) OR (provide options to select)?
Yes, exactly.
I have sent a new patchset considering your suggestions.
Here is the link to it
https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2017-October/msg01333.html
Madhu