On 10/27/2017 06:51 PM, Jiri Denemark wrote:
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 18:47:51 +0530, Madhu Pavan wrote:
On 10/27/2017 02:51 PM, Jiri Denemark wrote:
I think this is actually a bit more complicated. When reverting to a
snapshot, when reverting a snapshot we should revert both active and
inactive configuration for backward compatibility and also because it
makes sense. Imagine you made a snapshot of a running domain, played
with the domain configuration and then reverted the state of the domain
to the snapshot. Once you shutdown the domain and start it again you'd
get a completely different machine. Of course, you actually may want
such behavior. Thus we can't really guess whether a user wants to revert
both active and inactive configuration or just one of them. The user
should be able to tell us what to do (and we should revert both configs
if no preference is given).
However, for this to be really useful we need to store both active and
inactive configurations when creating a snapshot of a running domain.
With the current behavior that I see from snapshot-list, I understood we
categorize the snapshots
as "Active (running, paused)" or "config(shutoff)" depending if the
snapshot was taken on an
active or inactive domain. With my use case what I observed was that the
revert of active
snapshot actually overwriting inactive domain configuration. I thought
only the "config" snapshot
alone can overwrite the inactive domain configuration. Hence this patch.
Are you suggesting we
should have both active and inactive domain configurations to be saved
for an active guest and
restore (both by default) OR (provide options to select)?
Yes, exactly.
I have sent a new patchset considering your suggestions.
Here is the link to it
https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2017-October/msg01333.html
Madhu
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
