On 6/3/14 18:10 , "Eric Blake" <ebl...@redhat.com> wrote: >On 06/03/2014 04:06 PM, Eric Blake wrote: >> On 06/03/2014 03:58 PM, Michael Roth wrote: >> >>>> Bikeshedding on the proposed name: given that 'fs' is an abbreviation >>>>of >>>> 'filesystem', "fsfreeze-freeze-filesystems" sounds rather redundant. >>>>I >>>> would suggest guest-fsfreeze-list as a shorter name that conveys the >>>> intent, without quite as much repetition. >>> >>> Somewhat agree, though I think we should retain the >>>guest-<command_group>-<verb> >>> structure and at least go with guest-fsfreeze-freeze-list. >> >> guest- prefix is uncontroversial >> command_group is 'fsfreeze'. >> Currently in that group are the verbs 'status', 'freeze', and 'thaw'; >> and my proposal is to add 'list' (not 'freeze-list') as the new verb >> (just as we don't have 'freeze-status' as a verb). > >Uggh, now that I reread the thread... > >'freeze-list' is indeed a better verb than 'list' - we aren't listing >the mountpoints (that is patch 2/2 with guest-fs-get-info), but freezing >a list of mountpoints (the existing 'freeze' action is taken, so we are >doing a new action based on freeze but with a longer name). > >Okay, I can live with 'guest-fsfreeze-freeze-list'.
I'm okay with 'guest-fsfreeze-freeze-list' too. >Do we need a guest-fsfreeze-thaw-list counterpart, or is it sufficient >to always thaw all systems without worrying about listing them? I think current guest-fsfreeze-thaw is sufficient; don't want to risk leaving some filesystems unfrozen that may cause deadlocks.. Thanks, Tomoki Sekiyama
