From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5510A9877F
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon,  9 Oct 2023 13:11:41 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2DE511650E
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon,  9 Oct 2023 13:11:11 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [94.136.29.106])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon,  9 Oct 2023 13:11:10 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E90A44365D
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon,  9 Oct 2023 13:11:09 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4cb3d3da-96da-506a-a40d-8a031b997d93@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2023 13:11:09 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.15.1
Content-Language: en-US
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Filip Schauer <f.schauer@proxmox.com>
References: <20230825121851.103307-1-f.schauer@proxmox.com>
 <20230825121851.103307-3-f.schauer@proxmox.com>
From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230825121851.103307-3-f.schauer@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.827 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 DMARC_MISSING             0.1 Missing DMARC policy
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 NICE_REPLY_A           -1.818 Looks like a legit reply (A)
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH v2 qemu-server 2/2] Rename vm_is_paused to
 vm_is_frozen
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2023 11:11:41 -0000

Am 25.08.23 um 14:18 schrieb Filip Schauer:
> Rename vm_is_paused to vm_is_frozen to avoid confusion with the "paused"
> runstate.
> 

I know I suggested renaming the function, but with 'frozen' there is
potential for new confusion with fsfreeze, especially with the
user-facing warnings/errors. It's also that 'paused' sounds nicer to
users here IMHO.

Maybe we can call it vcpus_(are_)paused and keep the user-facing
messages the same? Or we can just keep the current name. Right now,
there is no case where we need to distinguish between having runstate
'paused' and the return value of vm_is_paused().