Am 09.01.2019 um 15:10 hat Max Reitz geschrieben: > On 06.09.18 13:11, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote: > > changes in v2: > > - removed the "RFC" marker; > > - added a new patch (patch 2) that removes > > bdrv_snapshot_delete_by_id_or_name from the code; > > - made changes in patch 1 as suggested by Murilo; > > - previous patch set link: > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2018-08/msg04658.html > > > > > > It is not uncommon to see bugs being opened by testers that attempt to > > create VM snapshots using HMP. It turns out that "0" and "1" are quite > > common snapshot names and they trigger a lot of bugs. I gave an example > > in the commit message of patch 1, but to sum up here: QEMU treats the > > input of savevm/loadvm/delvm sometimes as 'ID', sometimes as 'name'. It > > is documented as such, but this can lead to strange situations. > > > > Given that it is strange for an API to consider a parameter to be 2 fields > > at the same time, and inadvently treating them as one or the other, and > > that removing the ID field is too drastic, my idea here is to keep the > > ID field for internal control, but do not let the user set it. > > > > I guess there's room for discussion about considering this change an API > > change or not. It doesn't affect users of HMP and it doesn't affect Libvirt, > > but simplifying the meaning of the parameters of savevm/loadvm/delvm. > > (Yes, very late reply, I'm sorry...) > > I do think it affects users of HMP, because right now you can delete > snapshots with their ID, and after this series you cannot.
Can there be snapshots that can't be identified by a snapshot name, but only by their ID? > I think we had a short discussion about just disallowing numeric > snapshot names. How bad would that be? It would be incompatible with existing images and result in a more complex snapshot identifier resolution. Why would it be any better? Kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature