On 12/31/19 5:42 PM, Michael Weiser wrote:
Hi Daniel,
On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 05:19:54PM -0300, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
This patch marks the restore operation as risky at the libvirt level, requiring the user to remove the saved memory state first or force the operation.
[1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/virt-tools-list/2019-November/msg00011.html [2] https://www.redhat.com/archives/virt-tools-list/2019-December/msg00049.html
Signed-off-by: Michael Weiser <michael.weiser@gmx.de> Cc: Cole Robinson <crobinso@redhat.com> --- As said in [1], I agree that the API needs a flag override to allow the user to roll with it despite the risks. Given that this is somewhat a corner case, I also believe that such override can go in a separated patch/series later on.
Do you mean a separate override flag beyond VIR_DOMAIN_SNAPSHOT_REVERT_FORCE? Or should I just update the commit message to make clear how the user can force the operation?
Ah, I overlooked the "or force the operation" part of the commit message after reading the discussions in [1] and [2]. Instead of updating the commit message, I think you can update the error message to mention the '--force' option, e.g. : + virReportError(VIR_ERR_SNAPSHOT_REVERT_RISKY, "%s", + _("revert to snapshot while there is a managed " + "saved state will cause corruption when run, " + "remove saved state first or use the " + "--force option")); I also noticed that the man page for 'snapshot-revert' mentions two cases where the use of --force is required. One of them talks about snapshots created using old Libvirt versions. The other goes as follows: ---- (docs/manpages/virsh.rst) The other is the case of reverting from a running domain to an active state where a new hypervisor has to be created rather than reusing the existing hypervisor, because it implies drawbacks such as breaking any existing VNC or Spice connections; this condition happens with an active snapshot that uses a provably incompatible configuration, as well as with an inactive snapshot that is combined with the --start or --pause flag. ---- I am almost certain that scenario you're handling here is not covered by this excerpt. In this case, since you're adding a new '--force' condition, I believe a second patch adding this new '--force' condition in the documentation is a nice touch. Thanks, DHB
Reviewed-by: Daniel Henrique Barboza <danielhb413@gmail.com>
Thanks!