On 10/17/18 3:51 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
On 10/17/18 2:17 AM, Dominik Csapak wrote:
On 10/8/18 3:19 PM, Dominik Csapak wrote:
when '-no-reboot' is set, it is interesting if the guest was originally
shutdown or reset, so save and return that info
Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak <d.csa...@proxmox.com>
---
qapi/run-state.json | 5 ++++-
vl.c | 5 ++++-
2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/qapi/run-state.json b/qapi/run-state.json
index 332e44897b..ec1769777d 100644
--- a/qapi/run-state.json
+++ b/qapi/run-state.json
@@ -107,6 +107,9 @@
# a guest-initiated ACPI shutdown request or other
hardware-specific action)
# rather than a host request (such as sending qemu a SIGINT).
(since 2.10)
#
+# @was_reset: If true, the shutdown was actually a reset, but no-reboot
+# was set, so it got converted to a shutdown
New additions should prefer naming like 'was-reset' rather than
'was_reset', if we still think this particular name is appropriate. My
personal take: what does the 'was' add, which would prevent us from just
using the name 'reset' and avoiding the separator spelling issue?
yes of course 'reset' is fine, i just thought it might be confusing
having a RESET event and a SHUTDOWN event with a 'reset' flag, but
i guess if one tries to monitor them they would read the
api documentation anyway
