On 10/25/12 11:03, Michal Privoznik wrote:
On 25.10.2012 10:22, Jiri Denemark wrote:We always expose individual bits from flags as separate options rather than exposing a raw flags options. Since virNodeSuspendForDuration does not currently support any flags, the only way of using this --flags options that would not fail is "--flags 0", which is equivalent to omitting the option. Thus it is highly unlikely anyone would actually be using it and removing it should be safe. --- tools/virsh-host.c | 10 +--------- tools/virsh.pod | 2 +- 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/tools/virsh-host.c b/tools/virsh-host.c index 0f9b3f3..2ea24ac 100644 --- a/tools/virsh-host.c +++ b/tools/virsh-host.c @@ -506,7 +506,6 @@ static const vshCmdOptDef opts_node_suspend[] = { {"target", VSH_OT_DATA, VSH_OFLAG_REQ, N_("mem(Suspend-to-RAM), " "disk(Suspend-to-Disk), hybrid(Hybrid-Suspend)")}, {"duration", VSH_OT_INT, VSH_OFLAG_REQ, N_("Suspend duration in seconds, at least 60")}, - {"flags", VSH_OT_INT, VSH_OFLAG_NONE, N_("Suspend flags, 0 for default")}, {NULL, 0, 0, NULL} };While I agree that this design is broken I don't think we can do this. Okay, for now we only support 0; but what if in the future we invent a new flag? With current virsh one is able to use it however with your patch he isn't. Therefore I'd rather see slightly different approach. Like we do for other broken options/arguments in virsh - hide it, don't mention it anywhere but keep the code.
I agree with this approach. Peter -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list