On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 09:51:34AM +0100, Christophe Fergeau wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 02:26:02AM +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: > > From: "Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)" <zeeshanak@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Binding for virDomainHasManagedSaveImage(). > > --- > > libvirt-gobject/libvirt-gobject-domain.c | 13 +++++++++++++ > > libvirt-gobject/libvirt-gobject-domain.h | 1 + > > libvirt-gobject/libvirt-gobject.sym | 1 + > > 3 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/libvirt-gobject/libvirt-gobject-domain.c b/libvirt-gobject/libvirt-gobject-domain.c > > index d9e4c00..5f26dcd 100644 > > --- a/libvirt-gobject/libvirt-gobject-domain.c > > +++ b/libvirt-gobject/libvirt-gobject-domain.c > > @@ -854,3 +854,16 @@ gboolean gvir_domain_get_persistent(GVirDomain *dom) > > > > return virDomainIsPersistent(dom->priv->handle) == 1; > > } > > + > > +/** > > + * gvir_domain_get_saved: > > + * @dom: the domain > > + * > > + * Returns: TRUE if domain is in a saved state, FALSE otherwise. > ^^^^^^^^^^^ > > I'd reword this a bit, when reading this, I'm wondering why it's not in > GVirDomainState. For historical back compatibility we didn't want to change that. Apps rely on the fact that the 'SHUTOFF' state reflects an inactive domain and all other states reflect an activate domain. Adding a 'SAVED' state would have confused apps. 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