Tue, 2 Oct 2007 15:47:12 +0100, "Daniel P. Berrange" wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 10:11:01PM +0900, Masaki Kanno wrote:
>> Hi Dan,
>> 
>> Thanks for your effort and your patch. 
>> I think that the allow/reject rules are wonderful. But, I have a few 
>> comments. 
>> 
>> 
>> I agree the rule of the following case. 
>> But, the behavior is (redefine+rename+create), isn't it?
>
>Yes, that is actually what it ends up doing, replacing the config for the 
>matching UUID causes a rename.
>
>> When I tested the following case, the result was as follows. 
>> I think that we should reject xm new command if same UUID vm is active. 
>
>I hadn't noticed that, but its easy to special case this particular
>case / scenario to be rejected. Or we could fix it to correctly rename
>the existing running VM which might be more user friendly. 
>
>Either option is a small add-on patch to my previous submissions.
Sorry for delay with replies to your message. 
I am worried about changing the configuration of existing running VM. 
But, my worry is vague, and does not have great grounds. 
If UUID is same, maybe we will become possible to change the name of 
the VM and all the configuration of the VM by xm new command, I guess. 
If only the config.sxp of the VM is changed by xm new command, and if 
the definition of the config.sxp is reflected after xm shutdown command, 
my worry will be resolved. 
Best regards,
 Kan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel