On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 21:21:54 -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > On 04/16/2012 08:29 AM, Jiri Denemark wrote: > > >>>> /** > >>>> + * virDomainBlockCopy: > >>>> + * @dom: pointer to domain object > >>>> + * @disk: path to the block device, or device shorthand > >>>> + * @dest: path to the copy destination > >>>> + * @format: format of the destination > >>>> + * @bandwidth: (optional) specify copy bandwidth limit in Mbps > >>>> + * @flags: bitwise-OR of virDomainBlockCopyFlags > >>> > >>> OK, so this new API may be used to avoid format guessing involved in > >>> virDomainBlockRebase. Shouldn't we introduce an enhanced version of > >>> virDomainBlockRebase with format parameter instead of introducing an API with > >>> a different name that does almost the same as virDomainBlockRebase? > >> > >> And what would you name it? I'm saying that virDomainBlockCopy _is_ an > >> enhanced virDomainBlockRebase, and the name BlockCopy was the name I > >> picked, as it looks nicer than virDomainBlockRebase2(). > > > > I don't know, I was probably expecting something like virDomainBlockRebaseExt > > :-P I'm just missing a clear link between virDomainBlockRebase and > > virDomainBlockCopy. I guess a note to virDomainBlockRebase documentation > > mentioning virDomainBlockCopy as an enhanced version would work too. > > But I already did that :) Heh, indeed you did. Sorry for the noise ;) Jirka -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list