Am 09.01.2019 um 18:55 hat Eric Blake geschrieben: > On 1/9/19 11:38 AM, Max Reitz wrote: > > >>>>> I do think it affects users of HMP, because right now you can delete > >>>>> snapshots with their ID, and after this series you cannot. > >>>> > > >> This. Is. HMP. > >> > >> Not a stable ABI, no deprecation period of two releases. > > > > Well, if you want to do it. > > > > This may be HMP, but this is also the only interface to savevm, so it's > > not like users have a choice to use a more stable interface. I know > > that was a conscious decision, more or less, but I don't see why we need > > to be so nasty when the hardest thing about doing a nice deprecation > > would be to remember to make it an error in half a year. > > Indeed, and libvirt IS using 'savevm' via HMP via QMP's > human-monitor-command, since there is no QMP counterpart for internal > snapshot. Even though lately we consistently tell people that internal > snapshots are underdeveloped and you should use external snapshots, it > does not get away from the fact that libvirt has been using 'savevm' to > drive internal snapshots for years now, and that we MUST consider > back-compat and/or add an introspectible QMP interface before making > changes that would break libvirt.
Okay, so what does libvirt do when you request a snapshot with a numerical name? Without having looked at the code, the best case I would expect that it forbids them, and more realistically I suspect that we may actually fix a bug for libvirt by changing the semantics. Or does libvirt really use snapshot IDs rather than names? Kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
