On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 12:19:34PM +0400, Christophe Fergeau wrote:
Hey,
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 09:58:23PM +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
> From: "Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)" <zeeshanak(a)gnome.org>
>
> Its just a set of synchronous and asynchronous wrappers around
> virDomainManagedSave.
> ---
> libvirt-gobject/libvirt-gobject-domain.c | 120 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> libvirt-gobject/libvirt-gobject-domain.h | 11 +++
> libvirt-gobject/libvirt-gobject.sym | 3 +
> 3 files changed, 134 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/libvirt-gobject/libvirt-gobject-domain.c
b/libvirt-gobject/libvirt-gobject-domain.c
> index e4963ed..8496257 100644
> --- a/libvirt-gobject/libvirt-gobject-domain.c
> +++ b/libvirt-gobject/libvirt-gobject-domain.c
> @@ -708,3 +708,123 @@ gboolean gvir_domain_suspend (GVirDomain *dom,
> cleanup:
> return ret;
> }
> +
> +/**
> + * gvir_domain_saved_suspend:
_saved_suspend is good for me even though it took me a while to get what it
means. Maybe _persistent_suspend would be better? Hopefully this won't turn
into some bikeshedding, but since we are not reusing the libvirt naming,I
feelt it was worth making an alternate suggestion :)
I'd suggest just calling it 'gvir_domain_save' really.
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 :|