[libvirt] [PATCH] interface: Check for interface (in-)activity on some operations

[Matthias Bolte]

2011/7/15 Eric Blake <eblake at redhat.com>:
> On 07/15/2011 08:45 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
>> On 07/15/2011 08:36 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
>>>> On the other hand, if we don't support transient interfaces, then the
>>>> above analysis which works for domains would have to be adjusted for
>>>> interfaces, so you may have something to patch after all.
>>>>
>>> Well, although we have function interfaceCreate, it is actually (from
>>> semantic POV) interfaceStart, because it just start inactive but defined
>>> interface. So we do not support transient interfaces. Therefore
>>> transitions for interfaces are slightly different from transitions for
>>> domains. That's why I think we do need this patch.
>>
>> Let's nail down the transitions that we plan to support, then, just as I
>> did earlier for domains.
>>
>> It would be even cooler to have a life cycle diagram with the API used
>> to transition between states documented somewhere.  I seem to recall
>> seeing one for domains once, but couldn't find it in 5 minutes of
>> searching right now.
>
> Found it:
>
> http://libvirt.org/guide/html-single/#Application_Development_Guide-Guest_Domains-Lifecycle

For some reason the anchor doesn't work for me, just for reference a
link that involves less scrolling :)

http://libvirt.org/guide/html/Application_Development_Guide-Guest_Domains-Lifecycle.html

> That diagram completely lacks transient domains.  It also shows
> persistent/running to persistent/inactive via Shutdown, while I
> mentioned Destroy (both APIs work for that transition, although Shutdown
> requires guest response).
>
> Something that could certainly use some TLC!

Also that diagram is wrong about the saved state. There is nothing
like that in context of virDomainSave/virDomainRestore. Also the
diagram misses managedsave. In the context of managedsave there is
actually a saved state.

-- 
Matthias Bolte
http://photron.blogspot.com