On 06/15/12 06:18, Eric Blake wrote:
The generator doesn't handle lists of virDomainSnapshotPtr, so
this commit requires a bit more work than some RPC additions.
* src/remote/remote_protocol.x
(REMOTE_PROC_DOMAIN_LIST_ALL_SNAPSHOTS)
(REMOTE_PROC_DOMAIN_SNAPSHOT_LIST_ALL_CHILDREN): New RPC calls,
with corresponding structs.
* daemon/remote.c (remoteDispatchDomainListAllSnapshots)
(remoteDispatchDomainSnapshotListAllChildren): New functions.
* src/remote/remote_driver.c (remoteDomainListAllSnapshots)
(remoteDomainSnapshotListAllChildren): Likewise.
* src/remote_protocol-structs: Regenerate.
---
--- a/src/remote/remote_protocol.x
+++ b/src/remote/remote_protocol.x
@@ -2249,6 +2249,17 @@ struct remote_domain_snapshot_list_names_ret {
remote_nonnull_string names<REMOTE_DOMAIN_SNAPSHOT_LIST_NAMES_MAX>; /*
insert@1 */
};
+struct remote_domain_list_all_snapshots_args {
+ remote_nonnull_domain dom;
+ int need_results;
+ unsigned int flags;
+};
+
+struct remote_domain_list_all_snapshots_ret {
+ remote_nonnull_domain_snapshot snapshots<>;
+ int ret;
+};
+
struct remote_domain_snapshot_num_children_args {
remote_nonnull_domain_snapshot snap;
unsigned int flags;
@@ -2268,6 +2279,17 @@ struct remote_domain_snapshot_list_children_names_ret {
remote_nonnull_string names<REMOTE_DOMAIN_SNAPSHOT_LIST_NAMES_MAX>; /*
insert@1 */
};
+struct remote_domain_snapshot_list_all_children_args {
+ remote_nonnull_domain_snapshot snapshot;
+ int need_results;
+ unsigned int flags;
+};
+
+struct remote_domain_snapshot_list_all_children_ret {
+ remote_nonnull_domain_snapshot snapshots<>;
Hopefully we'll go with unbounded arrays in the future, but as with my
listing function: Shouldn't we use the limit that was imposed on name
list length also on this list? (REMOTE_DOMAIN_SNAPSHOT_LIST_NAMES_MAX).
+ int ret;
+};
+
struct remote_domain_snapshot_lookup_by_name_args {
remote_nonnull_domain dom;
remote_nonnull_string name;
ACK with the limit added. I'm a fan of unbounded arrays, but I think we
should be consistent.
Peter