Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v19 08/12] xl/remus: cmdline switch to explicitly enable unsafe configurations

[Shriram Rajagopalan <rshriram@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sep 25, 2014 6:29 AM, "Ian Jackson" <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [PATCH v19 08/12] xl/remus: cmdline switch to explicitly enable unsafe configurations"):
> > On Wed, 2014-09-24 at 11:00 -0700, Shriram Rajagopalan wrote:
> > > This needs to be at libxl level because other users of the
> > > libxl_Remus_domain_start API could potentially invoke it with
> > > net/buffer disabled, with the assumption that such a config would
> > > still provide the desired HA semantics. The libxl level unsafe option
> > > forces the caller to explicitly acknowledge that he/she is aware of
> > > the consequences. Whether the caller is xl or libvirt or someone else,
> > > it doesn't matter.
>
> Fair enough.
>
> > > FYI, there is literally no prep work in xl (in safe config). Given
> > > that the whole Remus api is now asynchronous, other users of libxl can
> > > invoke Remus on a domain with equal ease as xl.
>
> Indeed.
>
> > Would "allow_unsafe" or "force_unsafe" be a more accurate name?
>

force_unsafe sounds a lot better. Thanks for the suggestion.

> Probably, yes. Thanks.
>
> Ian.
>

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel