From: Francesc Guasch <frankie(a)telecos.upc.edu&gt; --- lib/Sys/Virt/StoragePool.pm | 7 ++----- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/lib/Sys/Virt/StoragePool.pm b/lib/Sys/Virt/StoragePool.pm index 0bc1d50..2ba5101 100644 --- a/lib/Sys/Virt/StoragePool.pm +++ b/lib/Sys/Virt/StoragePool.pm @@ -115,14 +115,11 @@ C<define_storage_pool> method in L<Sys::Virt>. Remove the configuration associated with a storage pool previously defined with the C<define_storage pool> method in L<Sys::Virt>. If the storage pool is -running, you probably want to use the C<shutdown> or C<destroy> -methods instead. +running, you probably want to use the C<destroy> method instead.

On 03/01/18 10:47, Erik Skultety wrote: > On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 09:15:34AM +0100, frankie(a)telecos.upc.edu wrote: > > From: Francesc Guasch <frankie(a)telecos.upc.edu&gt; > > diff --git a/lib/Sys/Virt/StoragePool.pm b/lib/Sys/Virt/StoragePool.pm > > index 0bc1d50..2ba5101 100644 > > --- a/lib/Sys/Virt/StoragePool.pm > > +++ b/lib/Sys/Virt/StoragePool.pm > > @@ -115,14 +115,11 @@ C<define_storage_pool> method in L<Sys::Virt>. > > > > Remove the configuration associated with a storage pool previously defined > > with the C<define_storage pool> method in L<Sys::Virt>. If the storage pool is > > -running, you probably want to use the C<shutdown> or C<destroy> > > -methods instead. > > +running, you probably want to use the C<destroy> method instead. > > If you want to make the pool unmanaged by libvirt, destroy doesn't help at > all since it would only stop a running pool, but wouldn't undefine it. > Therefore, we should either omit the sentence completely or use something like > this: 'Calling C<undefine> on a running pool makes it transient, thus leaving > the underlying object intact, so if object discard is desired, C<destroy> should > be called first.' Good point. But I use destroy to set the storage pool inactive, it works for me. > However, truth to be told, even my suggested sentence isn't correct, since > undefine on running pools results in an error - we need to fix that since it > should behave the same way as domains and make them transient. Maybe we can > drop the additional sentence now and update it later when things work the > expected way. > My initial concern was that shutdown is not in the Storage Pool API. Only destroy can be used. I guess it got pasted from the Domain module.