Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] [qemu] xen_be_init under stubdom

[Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 20 Jan 2011, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Stefano Stabellini writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] [qemu] xen_be_init under 
> stubdom"):
> > On Thu, 20 Jan 2011, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > Well, fine, then it will fall over.  I don't see why we need to
> > > special-case anything.
> >  
> > It depends on how it fails.
> > And in any case, isn't it better to explicitly avoid running any code
> > that we know for sure it cannot run? So that the next person that looks
> > at this code doesn't assume that the backends are run in the stubdom too
> > before realizing that they actually fail to start?
> 
> I agree but I think this should be done in much higher up the stack.
 
Considering how the backends are currently setup, there is nothing else
higher up the stack. Keep in mind that this code only enables the
backends in qemu, it doesn't assume that the backends are going to be
active and linked to any frontends (that is for the toolstack to
decide).
So I think is correct to explicitly fail to register (register !=
initialize) the backends in the stubdom case.

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