Am 16.06.2010 17:22, schrieb Chris Lalancette: > On 06/16/10 - 03:15:11PM, Kevin Wolf wrote: >> Am 16.06.2010 14:59, schrieb Miguel Di Ciurcio Filho: >>> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> If the human monitor was exactly what its name says, I'd happily apply >>>> this one (though I think it should be made clear from which image the VM >>>> state would be loaded). However, it isn't and I'm not sure if this >>>> wouldn't break libvirt. Dan, can you help? >>>> >>> >>> I didn't mention in the commit, but I've looked at libvirt's source >>> and it is not using 'info snapshots' AFAIK. >> >> Anthony, Dan, are you okay with the change then? > > Right, exactly as Miguel said, libvirt doesn't use "info snapshots" at all > at the moment. One of the reasons we don't use it at present is precisely > because it doesn't give us information about all disks in-use. > > The other reason that we can't use "info snapshots" is that we need to know > parent information about snapshots. That is, if you take a sequence of > snapshots: > > A -> B -> C > > And then you delete B, the disk changes from B will be merged automatically > into C to keep C a valid snapshot. However, there is currently no way to > discover this parent/child relationship, so we can't use "info snapshots" > for that reason as well.
Well, there is no parent/child relation in qcow2, so exposing this is going to be really hard. We also don't really need it anywhere in qemu. What would libvirt use this information for? Kevin
