Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xl: Special case tap/aio for disk validation

[Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 28 Jan 2011, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-01-27 at 20:14 +0000, Kamala Narasimhan wrote:
> > > While fixing the disk parsing is critical for 4.1, I am not sure if we
> > > can deprecate the current syntax for 4.1 as well.
> > > We should keep in mind that xend is still using the other syntax and it
> > > is still present in-tree, so if we really want to deprecate it we need
> > > to fix xend too. 
> > 
> > By deprecating I didn't mean we would remove the functionality and
> > introduce inconsistency between xend and xl in terms of usage.  I
> > wasn't sure if we should stop with documenting the fact that it is
> > deprecated or also display a warning message (in libxl) to that
> > effect.  I would go with a warning also unless someone disapproves.
> 
> When I originally said "deprecate" I really meant "plan to deprecate",
> i.e. accept the new and old syntax now and intend to deprecate the old
> syntax e.g. in 4.2.
> 

Yes, this plan is much more feasible.

> WRT xend compatibility, I think the goal that a xend/xm configuration
> file can be fed to xl without modification is a worthy one and obviously
> aids in the transition etc.
> 
> The opposite goal (that an xl configuration file can be fed directly to
> xm) is not so obviously worthwhile.
> 
> I don't think we should be hobbling the evolution and ongoing use of the
> xl configuration file syntax (or indeed the (lib)xl functionality)
> simply to keep xend happy, in just the same way as we currently don't
> insist that every feature added to (lib)xl also gets added to xend.
> 
> I guess what I mean is that if people use xl specific syntax/options in
> their configuration files then they should not expect things to Just
> Work if they go back to xend.
 
+1

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