On Thursday 31 March 2011 10:04:36 Osier Yang wrote: > ä 2011å03æ30æ 23:56, Jean-Baptiste Rouault åé: > > On Wednesday 30 March 2011 17:23:51 Osier Yang wrote: > >> Yes, actually I also prefer to add new flag to API, but not in > >> virsh instead, however, adding new flag argument is not workable, > >> how about introduce a new API, something like "virDomainUndefineFlag"? > > > > I wanted to suggest something similar because I'm annoyed that > > calling undefine on an OpenVZ domain destroys the container private > > area... > > Hi, Jean > > Could you explain more? Wanna known if can do it incidentally, though > I'm guessing it's caused by openvz driver destroying the private > area internally, something like "vzctl --destroy". If it's right > for your meaning, then IMHO we can't introduce new flag for this, > as it's only openvz driver specificly. > > Regards > Osier Hi, Yes the problem is OpenVZ specific because "vzctl destroy" internally destroys the private area. If there is a new "virDomainUndefineFlag" API, I was thinking that maybe the openvz driver could check the value of that flag in "openvzDomainUndefine()", then only remove the container config file in one case, or use "vzctl destroy" in the other case. To make it cleaner, a patch could be send upstream so that vzctl destroy accepts a new argument like "--keep-private". Regards Jean-Baptiste -- Jean-Baptiste ROUAULT IngÃnieur R&D - Diateam : Architectes de l'information Phone : +33 (0)9 53 16 02 70 Fax : +33 (0)2 98 050 051 -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list