On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 13:13:04 +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
...
> 1) Invent new flag to all APIs in question and let mgmt applications
> call it. If the flag is set we would sync the guest time too. However,
> this masks two different operations under single API. What should be
> reported if
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 08:46:13AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 10/13/2015 06:20 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>
> >> There's of course the obvious solution - not change anything and have
> >> mgmt apps calling two separate APIs - like they oughtta be doing today.
> >
> > That's the right soluti
On 10/13/2015 06:20 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>> There's of course the obvious solution - not change anything and have
>> mgmt apps calling two separate APIs - like they oughtta be doing today.
>
> That's the right solution IMHO
>
>> What's your view?
>
> I see no compelling reason to add a
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 01:13:04PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> So I came across this bug:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156194
>
> There's a request for us to automatically sync guest time on domain
> resume (e.g. bare virDomainResume(), or virDomainRestore() or after
> mi
So I came across this bug:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156194
There's a request for us to automatically sync guest time on domain
resume (e.g. bare virDomainResume(), or virDomainRestore() or after
migration). I'd like to explore our options here and what would be
acceptable upst
