On 09.01.19 15:21, Kevin Wolf wrote: > 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 don't know, but what I meant is that if you have scripts to do all this, you might have to adjust them with this change. >> 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? It wouldn't be incompatible with existing images if we'd just disallow creating such snapshots. I don't see how the identifier resolution would be more complex. I don't know if it'd be better. I'd just find it simpler (for us, that is -- for users, I'm not sure). Max
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
