On 11/10/2015 03:38 AM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > * Eric Blake (ebl...@redhat.com) wrote: >> [adding Markus for a qapi question] >>
>>> >>> ## >>> +# @migrate-start-postcopy >>> +# >>> +# Switch migration to postcopy mode >> >> No documentation on the relation to the [x-]postcopy-ram capability bit? > > > One alternative piece of text would be > 'Switch current migration to postcopy mode; the x-postcopy-ram capability must > be set before issuing this command.' Adding that to the .json would be sufficient for me if you don't feel like naming this x-migrate-start-postcopy - with that sentence, it is then obvious to the reader that this command depends on an experimental prerequisite (and when we later rename x-postcopy-ram to drop the x-, we fix the documentation here). > >>> +# >>> +# Since: 2.5 >>> +{ 'command': 'migrate-start-postcopy' } >> >> Should we rename this command to 'x-migrate-start-postcopy' until we are >> ready to rename the entire feature to the stable namespace? > > If you think it's best we could; however I took the 'x-' on the capability > just to be a flag to indicate it wasn't yet marked as stable; I don't > think we're actually worrying about changes to naming. I just wanted to make sure there was something right there in the migrate-start-postcopy docs that made it obvious that we haven't quite turned this into a fully supported interface yet. Naming it 'x-' does that, but I think it is also okay with just the extra sentence about the pre-req capability bit; and you'll want that sentence anyways even when the capability bit is renamed. -- Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature