Am 13.03.2012 21:48, schrieb Eric Blake:
> On 03/06/2012 10:56 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> From: Federico Simoncelli <fsimo...@redhat.com>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Federico Simoncelli <fsimo...@redhat.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com>
>
>> ##
>> +# @drive-reopen
>> +#
>> +# Assigns a new image file to a device.
>> +#
>> +# @device: the name of the device for which we are changing the image file.
>> +#
>> +# @new-image-file: the target of the new image. If the file doesn't exists
>> the
>> +# command will fail.
>> +#
>> +# @format: #optional the format of the new image, default is 'qcow2'.
>> +#
>> +# Returns: nothing on success
>> +# If @device is not a valid block device, DeviceNotFound
>> +# If @new-image-file can't be opened, OpenFileFailed
>> +# If @format is invalid, InvalidBlockFormat
>> +#
>> +# Since 1.1
>> +##
>> +{ 'command': 'drive-reopen',
>> + 'data': { 'device': 'str', 'new-image-file': 'str', '*format': 'str' } }
>
> I still think we need a 'drive-reopen' action included in 'transaction',
> as an 11/10 on this series.
If we want to do this, it needs to be the same patch, as we couple the
transaction actions with top-level commands as long as there is no other
way to discover the possible actions. And it probably makes more sense
anyway, because the top-level command would be just a thin wrapper
around the transactional one.
Only problem is that just moving the code there doesn't make it suitable
for a transaction and doing an all-or-nothing drive-reopen isn't quite
trivial.
Kevin
