On 12/13/18 3:03 AM, Nikolay Shirokovskiy wrote: > Signed-off-by: Nikolay Shirokovskiy <nshirokovskiy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > docs/formatsnapshot.html.in | 7 +++++++ > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) > This probably should be merged with patch5 - nice to separate for review though. Although, like patch4 it's not that important to me. > diff --git a/docs/formatsnapshot.html.in b/docs/formatsnapshot.html.in > index fbbecfd..1357f53 100644 > --- a/docs/formatsnapshot.html.in > +++ b/docs/formatsnapshot.html.in > @@ -235,6 +235,13 @@ > at the time of the snapshot (<span class="since">since > 0.9.5</span>). Readonly. > </dd> > + <dt><code>persistent/domain</code></dt> > + <dd>Inactive domain configuration for active persistent domain. s/for/from an/ > + Such a domain have 2 distinct configs and here inactive is Tough read grammar wise. > + stored. It is different from <code>domain</code> which more > + presisely keeps "inactive portion" of active config. precisely > + (<span class="since">since 5.0.0</span>). > + </dd> Hmmm... IIRC... isn't newDef the "next config"? Scour around for Domain*Persistent and see what I mean. I think you have this description backwards - hey I could be wrong, too... An active domain for which configuration specific changes have been made will store both the "active" and "next config" in the domain object and the <persistent> element will signify that config; whereas, the <domain> element signifies the active domain configuration. There is nothing different in the previous patch between the "<domain ... </domain>" and the "<persistent> ... </persistent>"; however, I would believe that if something changed as "config only" then it would/should show up in that persistDom. John > <dt><code>cookie</code></dt> > <dd>Save image cookie containing additional data libvirt may need to > properly restore a domain from an active snapshot when such data > -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
