On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 09:15:34AM +0100, fran...@telecos.upc.edu wrote: > From: Francesc Guasch <fran...@telecos.upc.edu> > > --- > lib/Sys/Virt/StoragePool.pm | 7 ++----- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/lib/Sys/Virt/StoragePool.pm b/lib/Sys/Virt/StoragePool.pm > index 0bc1d50..2ba5101 100644 > --- a/lib/Sys/Virt/StoragePool.pm > +++ b/lib/Sys/Virt/StoragePool.pm > @@ -115,14 +115,11 @@ C<define_storage_pool> method in L<Sys::Virt>. > > Remove the configuration associated with a storage pool previously defined > with the C<define_storage pool> method in L<Sys::Virt>. If the storage pool > is > -running, you probably want to use the C<shutdown> or C<destroy> > -methods instead. > +running, you probably want to use the C<destroy> method instead.
If you want to make the pool unmanaged by libvirt, destroy doesn't help at all since it would only stop a running pool, but wouldn't undefine it. Therefore, we should either omit the sentence completely or use something like this: 'Calling C<undefine> on a running pool makes it transient, thus leaving the underlying object intact, so if object discard is desired, C<destroy> should be called first.' However, truth to be told, even my suggested sentence isn't correct, since undefine on running pools results in an error - we need to fix that since it should behave the same way as domains and make them transient. Maybe we can drop the additional sentence now and update it later when things work the expected way. Erik -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
