On 7/8/19 2:40 AM, Peter Krempa wrote: > On Fri, Jul 05, 2019 at 23:37:29 -0500, Eric Blake wrote: >> The docs talked about an active snapshot when they meant an active >> domain; they also claimed the flag was a no-op for hypervisors with no >> snapshot metadata even though the flag is rejected as unrecognized for >> hypervisors with no snapshot support at all. >> >> Reported-by: Peter Krempa <pkrempa@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> src/libvirt-domain.c | 9 +++++---- >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > I'd probably go for the trivial addition of the flag to all of the > undefine APIs since that does not require clients from encoding the > knowledge whether the given hypervisor supports snapshots at all. I can do that as well. But as you observed, if you have a new virsh talking to an old libvirtd, it doesn't help, and I don't see a problem with the current documentation wording even if other drivers (silently) accept and ignore the flag. > > This works too though as we'd reject the flag at this point anyways. > > ACK I'll post a followup mail for review on adding no-op support in the remaining domains. -- Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3226 Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
