Eric,
On 7/31/19 4:52 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
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.
I ended up sending a patch to explain why the patch was breaking
in my machine and propose a fix for it.
Thanks,
DHB
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)?
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
