On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 14:52:17 -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
On 7/31/19 2:45 PM, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
Max,
Code looks ok. Two tests (virsh-checkpoint and virsh-snapshot) are failing, but they are also failing on master, thus I say this patch get a pass because it didn't break anything else.
What failures are you seeing? Those were just recently added, and if they are failing for you, it's worth getting them fixed. But I'm not seeing them fail on my end.
On 7/23/19 4:47 PM, Maxiwell S. Garcia wrote:
The snapshot-create operation of running guests saves the live XML and uses it to replace the active and inactive domain in case of revert. So, the config XML is ignored by the snapshot process. This commit changes it and adds the config XML in the snapshot XML as the <inactiveDomain> entry.
Since checkpoints are brand new, and also created always on a running image, should they also gain an <inactiveDomain> entry? And if we are fast enough, would it be worth mandating that entry on a checkpoint REDEFINE (even though we can't do it for a snapshot REDEFINE)?
Can you actually revert to a checkpoint? I don't think so, which means there's no reason for storing the inactive XML for it. Jirka