On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 12:35:09PM +0200, Jiri Denemark wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 13:24:25 -0400, Collin Walling wrote:
On 05/16/2018 04:39 AM, Jiri Denemark wrote:
This command is a virsh wrapper for virConnectCompareHypervisorCPU.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Denemark <jdenemar@redhat.com> --- tools/virsh-host.c | 113 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ tools/virsh.pod | 29 +++++++++++- 2 files changed, 141 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/tools/virsh-host.c b/tools/virsh-host.c index ea2c411c02..1e7cfcbd5e 100644 --- a/tools/virsh-host.c +++ b/tools/virsh-host.c @@ -1595,6 +1595,113 @@ cmdNodeMemoryTune(vshControl *ctl, const vshCmd *cmd) goto cleanup; }
+ +/* + * "hypervisor-cpu-compare" command + */
Really just a nit:
I'm somewhat torn by the verbose command name. "hypervisor-" is a bit cumbersome, but hy<tab> will auto-complete it for you at this point. Maybe shorten it to hv-cpu-compare?
Yeah, hv-* is definitely shorter, but I don't know if it's better. What do others think?
Since you asked (and as a heavy `virsh` user) ... although I like shorter commands, I go by "explicit is better than implicit" (within reason) with written text. FWIW, I lean towards the full spelling 'hypervisor'; one less acronym to auto-expand in your head. [...] -- /kashyap