On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 01:48:19PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
On 03/23/2010 01:23 PM, Chris Lalancette wrote:
} virDomainSnapshotDeactivate;
int virDomainSnapshotDeactivate(virDomainSnapshotPtr snapshot, unsigned int flags);
I'm not sure if virDomainSnapshotDeactivate is a good name. I agree it's not a great name. I didn't like Dan's original proposal of "virDomainSnapshotDelete", though, since it doesn't exactly seem to fit the situation either. Any more suggestions for a name?
I agree that Delete is misleading, but it kind of works (as long as you remember that in the merge case, the data being deleted is not the snapshot parameter that you passed to the function call, but the delta in state between the more-recent content that is being rolled back to the state it was earlier during the snapshot). Maybe some other ideas would work: virDomainSnapshotCleanup or virDomainSnapshotRecycle? After all, the goal of this API is to reduce the amount of storage pool being used to store snapshot images.
The reason for calling this "Delete" is that we are deleting thue virDomainSnapshotPtr object instance - it ceases to exist after this operation is called. 'Delete' is not refering to the data itself, the flags determine what happens to the data. Regards, Daniel -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://deltacloud.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|