Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> writes: > Am 28.08.2020 um 08:20 hat Markus Armbruster geschrieben: >> Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> writes: >> >> > Am 27.08.2020 um 13:06 hat Markus Armbruster geschrieben: >> >> Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> writes: >> >> >> >> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 07:28:24PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 05:52:06PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> >> >> > Open questions: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > * Do we want the QMP command to delete existing snapshots with >> >> >> > conflicting tag / ID, like HMP savevm does? Or do we want it to >> >> >> > fail >> >> >> > the transaction? >> >> >> >> >> >> The intent is for the QMP commands to operate exclusively on >> >> >> 'tags', and never consider "ID". >> >> > >> >> > I forgot that even HMP ignores "ID" now and works exclusively in terms >> >> > of tags since: >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > commit 6ca080453ea403959ccde661030ca16264acc181 >> >> > Author: Daniel Henrique Barboza <danielhb...@gmail.com> >> >> > Date: Wed Nov 7 11:09:58 2018 -0200 >> >> > >> >> > block/snapshot.c: eliminate use of ID input in snapshot operations >> >> >> >> Almost a year after I sent the memo I quoted. It's an incompatible >> >> change, but nobody complained, and I'm glad we got this issue out of the >> >> way. >> > >> > FWIW, I would have ignored any complaint about incompatible changes in >> > HMP. It's not supposed to be a stable API, but UI. >> >> The iffy part is actually the loss of ability to access snapshots that >> lack a name. Complaints about that would have been valid, I think. >> Fortunately, there have been none. > > 'loadvm ""' should do the trick for these.
As long as you have at most one. > The same way as you have to > use with 'savevm' to create them in non-prehistoric versions of QEMU. > We stopped creating snapshots with empty names by default in 0.14, so > they are probably not very relevant any more. (Versioned machine types > go back "only" to 1.0, so good luck loading a snapshot from an older > version. And I wouldn't bet money either on a 1.0 snapshot still working > with that machine type...) No argument.