Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/3] libxl stubdom API cleanup

[Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxx>]

At 11:44 +0100 on 09 Jul (1278675850), Vincent Hanquez wrote:
> On 09/07/10 09:17, Tim Deegan wrote:
> >> Is it necessary to pull the mechanism out along with the policy though?
> >>      
> > Or, if we're taking some mechanism out, couldn't we take _all_ the
> > mechanism out?
> 
> Which one do you have in minds ?

It looks like your patch leaves some "create a stubdom" functions in the
libxl API.  I'd have thought libxl should either handle stubdoms
entirely or not at all.  (Unless stubdom creation needs some low-level
grunge that will uglify the libxl API if it's exposed that far up - I
can't think of any except PRIV_FOR though).

> > The idea of a stub domain doesn't seem like one that
> > libxl necessarily needs to know about.
> >    
> yes, indeed. the stubdom create could move as a xl helper.
> On the ocaml side reimplementing stubdom create is a trivial composition 
> of smaller libxl function (create/build/add devs) which are already bound.

That sounds cleaner to me.

Cheers,

Tim.

-- 
Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxx>
Principal Software Engineer, XenServer Engineering
Citrix Systems UK Ltd.  (Company #02937203, SL9 0BG)

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel