On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 01:48:19PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > On 03/23/2010 01:23 PM, Chris Lalancette wrote: > >>> } virDomainSnapshotDeactivate; > >>> >> int virDomainSnapshotDeactivate(virDomainSnapshotPtr snapshot, > >>> >> unsigned int flags); > >> > > >> > I'm not sure if virDomainSnapshotDeactivate is a good name. > > I agree it's not a great name. I didn't like Dan's original > > proposal of "virDomainSnapshotDelete", though, since it doesn't > > exactly seem to fit the situation either. Any more suggestions for > > a name? > > I agree that Delete is misleading, but it kind of works (as long as you > remember that in the merge case, the data being deleted is not the > snapshot parameter that you passed to the function call, but the delta > in state between the more-recent content that is being rolled back to > the state it was earlier during the snapshot). Maybe some other ideas > would work: virDomainSnapshotCleanup or virDomainSnapshotRecycle? After > all, the goal of this API is to reduce the amount of storage pool being > used to store snapshot images. I like virDomainSnapshotCleanup() myself, Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxx | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/ -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list