On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 08:54:59AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > On 07/19/2011 08:47 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > >On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 10:46:49AM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote: > >>Maybe we can cache the png data per detected OS value rather than per > >>VM? Not sure if that collides with licensing issues, but would likely > >>mean storing less data on disk. > > > >You can't do that without getting into trademark issues. The icon > >that is displayed must have come from precisely the same guest. > > > >The icons are not large anyhow. > > > >One thing I meant to ask about Dan's proposal: > > > >>> $HOME/.local/libvirt/$CONN_URI/$DOMAIN_UUID/screenshot.png > >>> $HOME/.local/libvirt/$CONN_URI/$DOMAIN_UUID/icon.png > >>> $HOME/.local/libvirt/$CONN_URI/$DOMAIN_UUID/osinfo.json > > > >Do we need the connection URI? Isn't the dom UUID unique enough? > > Technically, a UUID should be unique enough. But right now, libvirt > does not enforce cross-connection uniqueness, and it is possible to > reuse a uuid value across hypervisors (even though such reuse > violates the definition of uuid), so using $CONN_URI protects us > from that potential for reuse. Besides, we already use $CONN_URI in > the paths of other files, such as per-domain logs (for example, > /var/log/libvirt/$CONN_URI/$DOMAIN_NAME.log), so it's a reasonable > proposal to keep that naming hierarchy elsewhere. Actually, using dom UUID alone would be desirable here, so that when a guest is migrated, you don't need to re-extract the images. Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list