On 11/06/12 09:30, Viktor Mihajlovski wrote:
On 11/05/2012 08:59 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
This patch documents both spellings. An alternative would be to
leave the alternate spellings as hidden aliases (virsh has support
for that), but still mention them in virsh.pod (see how we did an
alias for nodedev-dettach, for reference).
In my opinion start, stop, restart is better than the mix before and
semantically more accurate than boot, shutdown, reboot. The latter uses
terms that apply to the operating system inside the domain rather than
the domain (virtual machine) itself.
So I would even go so far to mark the latter group as legacy and
recommend the usage of the former.
=item B<reboot> I<domain> [I<--mode acpi|agent>]
+=item B<restart> I<domain> [I<--mode acpi|agent>]
Reboot a domain. This acts just as if the domain had the B<reboot>
command run from the console. The command returns as soon as it has
Now it would be a good time to correct the documentation. In reality the
restart/reboot is a combination of stop/shutdown followed by an in-place
reset of the domain (at least for QEMU/KVM). Which can behave the same
as a reboot but doesn't have to. This is one area of confusion for users
I have observed. Restart seems to raise a lower expectation level ;-).
For that reason I would also vote to exchange the order of appearance
(restart first).
I agree on this point.
@@ -1523,6 +1524,7 @@ be hot-plugged the next time the domain is
booted. As such, it must only be
used with the I<--config> flag, and not with the I<--live> flag.
=item B<shutdown> I<domain> [I<--mode acpi|agent>]
+=item B<stop> I<domain> [I<--mode acpi|agent>]
Same suggestion: first line stop, second shutdown.
But here I think stop is less appropriate. For me stop sounds
semantically more like what destroy does.
Giving the number of voices wanting this, I don't object any more.
Peter
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list