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@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > 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 -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
