On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 02:52:17PM -0500, 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. > > > 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)? > Hi Eric, IIUC, checkpoints do not have commands that override the config XML. So, I think that <inactiveDomain>, in this case, is not necessary. What do you think? > -- > Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer > Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3226 > Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org > > -- > libvir-list mailing list > libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
