On 7/31/19 2:45 PM, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote: > Max, > > Code looks ok. Two tests (virsh-checkpoint and virsh-snapshot) are > failing, but they are also failing on master, thus I say this patch get a > pass because it didn't break anything else. What failures are you seeing? Those were just recently added, and if they are failing for you, it's worth getting them fixed. But I'm not seeing them fail on my end. > On 7/23/19 4:47 PM, Maxiwell S. Garcia wrote: >> The snapshot-create operation of running guests saves the live >> XML and uses it to replace the active and inactive domain in >> case of revert. So, the config XML is ignored by the snapshot >> process. This commit changes it and adds the config XML in the >> snapshot XML as the <inactiveDomain> entry. Since checkpoints are brand new, and also created always on a running image, should they also gain an <inactiveDomain> entry? And if we are fast enough, would it be worth mandating that entry on a checkpoint REDEFINE (even though we can't do it for a snapshot REDEFINE)? -- 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
