On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 08:54:59AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
On 07/19/2011 08:47 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 10:46:49AM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
>>Maybe we can cache the png data per detected OS value rather than per
>>VM? Not sure if that collides with licensing issues, but would likely
>>mean storing less data on disk.
>
>You can't do that without getting into trademark issues. The icon
>that is displayed must have come from precisely the same guest.
>
>The icons are not large anyhow.
>
>One thing I meant to ask about Dan's proposal:
>
>>> $HOME/.local/libvirt/$CONN_URI/$DOMAIN_UUID/screenshot.png
>>> $HOME/.local/libvirt/$CONN_URI/$DOMAIN_UUID/icon.png
>>> $HOME/.local/libvirt/$CONN_URI/$DOMAIN_UUID/osinfo.json
>
>Do we need the connection URI? Isn't the dom UUID unique enough?
Technically, a UUID should be unique enough. But right now, libvirt
does not enforce cross-connection uniqueness, and it is possible to
reuse a uuid value across hypervisors (even though such reuse
violates the definition of uuid), so using $CONN_URI protects us
from that potential for reuse. Besides, we already use $CONN_URI in
the paths of other files, such as per-domain logs (for example,
/var/log/libvirt/$CONN_URI/$DOMAIN_NAME.log), so it's a reasonable
proposal to keep that naming hierarchy elsewhere.
Actually, using dom UUID alone would be desirable here, so that
when a guest is migrated, you don't need to re-extract the images.
Daniel
--
|:
http://berrange.com -o-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|:
http://libvirt.org -o-
http://virt-manager.org :|
|:
http://autobuild.org -o-
http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|:
http://entangle-photo.org -o-
http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|