On 04/14/2015 09:35 AM, Ján Tomko wrote: > On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 01:59:39PM -0400, John Ferlan wrote: >> >> >> On 04/04/2015 01:16 PM, Ján Tomko wrote: >>> The counterpart to VIR_DOMAIN_EVENT_ID_DEVICE_REMOVED. >>> >>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206114 >>> --- >>> daemon/remote.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++ >>> include/libvirt/libvirt-domain.h | 18 ++++++++++ >>> src/conf/domain_event.c | 77 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> src/conf/domain_event.h | 6 ++++ >>> src/libvirt_private.syms | 2 ++ >>> src/remote/remote_driver.c | 29 +++++++++++++++ >>> src/remote/remote_protocol.x | 14 +++++++- >>> src/remote_protocol-structs | 6 ++++ >>> tools/virsh-domain.c | 20 +++++++++++ >>> 9 files changed, 208 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >> >> I searched on VIR_DOMAIN_EVENT_ID_DEVICE - what about >> examples/object-events/event-test.c ? >> > > This patch already includes an example in tools/virsh :) > > I have sent a separate patch adding it to event-test as well. > > (I would have separated this patch too, as suggested by the > http://libvirt.org/api_extension.html > page, but it failed to compile separately due to either ACL check or > unhandled enum values) > >> Also should 'src/libvirt-domain.c' have a description for the _ADDED >> flag in 'virDomainAttachDeviceFlags' like there is for _REMOVED in >> 'virDomainDetachDeviceFlags'? > > No. > With DetachDevice, the device may still not be detached even if the API > returns and the caller needs to wait for the event to be sure. > Attaching a device is synchronous, so waiting for the event only makes > sense if the domain was changed from another connection. > > Generally, we don't seem to document events in the APIs that cause > them. > >> (although even that text is a bit shy of >> an 'a' - as in "or add a handler for" rather than "or add handler for" >> <sigh> > > Fixed: > http://libvirt.org/git/?p=libvirt.git;a=commitdiff;h=682ba8e9 > >> >> ACK in general for what's here and with the new test and change to >> AttachDevice description... >> > > I don't think either of those should be included in the patch. > > Jan > OK - explanation is fine with me. ACK - John -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list