Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] libxl: Support linux-stubdom in libxl

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 15:31 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 14:40 +0100, Jiageng Yu wrote:
> > > diff -r 37c77bacb52a tools/libxl/libxl.idl
> > > --- a/tools/libxl/libxl.idl    Mon May 23 17:38:28 2011 +0100
> > > +++ b/tools/libxl/libxl.idl    Wed Jun 01 03:24:57 2011 +0100
> > > @@ -196,6 +196,7 @@
> > >      ("dom_name",         string),
> > >      ("device_model_version", libxl_device_model_version),
> > >      ("device_model_stubdomain", bool),
> > > +   ("device_model_linux_stubdomain", bool),
> > >      ("device_model",     string, False, "if you set this you must set 
> > > device_model_version too"),
> > >      ("saved_state",      string),
> > >      ("type",             libxl_domain_type), 
> > 
> > I think what we actually want here is a single device_model_type
> > Enumeration, values are something like "process", "stub-linux",
> > "stub-minios", rather than multiple device_model_XXX_stubdom booleans.
> 
> indeed
> 
> 
> > I'm not convinced device_model_type is a good name, hopefully someone
> > can suggest something better. (device_model_mode??)
> 
> some suggestions:
> 
> 1) device_model_class
> 2) device_model_deployment
> 3) device_model_instance
> 
> I vote for 3)

I don't think deployment or instance has the right meaning here. class
is better but still doesn't feel right.

maybe ..._mode?

</bikeshed>

Ian.


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