2011/7/15 Eric Blake <eblake@xxxxxxxxxx>: > On 07/15/2011 08:45 AM, Eric Blake wrote: >> On 07/15/2011 08:36 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote: >>>> On the other hand, if we don't support transient interfaces, then the >>>> above analysis which works for domains would have to be adjusted for >>>> interfaces, so you may have something to patch after all. >>>> >>> Well, although we have function interfaceCreate, it is actually (from >>> semantic POV) interfaceStart, because it just start inactive but defined >>> interface. So we do not support transient interfaces. Therefore >>> transitions for interfaces are slightly different from transitions for >>> domains. That's why I think we do need this patch. >> >> Let's nail down the transitions that we plan to support, then, just as I >> did earlier for domains. >> >> It would be even cooler to have a life cycle diagram with the API used >> to transition between states documented somewhere. I seem to recall >> seeing one for domains once, but couldn't find it in 5 minutes of >> searching right now. > > Found it: > > http://libvirt.org/guide/html-single/#Application_Development_Guide-Guest_Domains-Lifecycle For some reason the anchor doesn't work for me, just for reference a link that involves less scrolling :) http://libvirt.org/guide/html/Application_Development_Guide-Guest_Domains-Lifecycle.html > That diagram completely lacks transient domains. It also shows > persistent/running to persistent/inactive via Shutdown, while I > mentioned Destroy (both APIs work for that transition, although Shutdown > requires guest response). > > Something that could certainly use some TLC! Also that diagram is wrong about the saved state. There is nothing like that in context of virDomainSave/virDomainRestore. Also the diagram misses managedsave. In the context of managedsave there is actually a saved state. -- Matthias Bolte http://photron.blogspot.com -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list