Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] tools: remove unused wrappers for python

[Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>]

On 10/06/2015 05:45 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-10-06 at 11:30 -0400, Zhigang Wang wrote:
> > On 10/06/2015 11:26 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2015-10-06 at 17:21 +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > > > On 10/06/2015 05:11 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 2015-10-06 at 16:51 +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > > > > > On 10/06/2015 03:40 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tue, 2015-10-06 at 12:39 +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And for the record, if my google-fu doesn't fail me, it's
> > > > > > > > possible to
> > > > > > > > load shared library into python interpreter using "dl" module
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > 2.7
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > "ctypes" module in 3.x.
> > > > > > > Possible, but not especially convenient since you need to
> > > > > > > convert
> > > > > > > the C
> > > > > > > prototype manually, plus the result is not necessarily very
> > > > > > > "pythonic".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I could totally see why people would prefer these bindings (or
> > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > argument
> > > > > > > for us providing a ctypes based wrapper).
> > > > > > How often is such a debugging interface being used? Please
> > > > > > consider
> > > > > > the amount of code (my patch removed nearly 3000 lines of code!)
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > the availability of the xl wrapper.
> > > > > My understanding was that this was used by the "xen-bugtool" stuff
> > > > > in
> > > > > XenServer, so for actual functionality (gathering debug info) and
> > > > > not
> > > > > debugging (I supposed that the reference to being used for
> > > > > debugging was
> > > > > due to the name of the tool).
> > > > And this functionality isn't available via the xl bindings?
> > > I don't know, we'll have to wait for those who are using it to chime
> > > in.
> > >
> > > Ian.
> > IanC: I remember you said xl bindings has some design issue and should
> > not be used. Is it still the case today?
> Yes.
>
> Sorry, I read Juergen's original "via the xl bindings" as "via libxl", i.e.
> by using the library directly and forgot about the need for python bindings
Uuh, too bad.

So I should change my patch to remove the xl bindings? ;-)

And what about xc bindings? What do I have to keep? Everything for xm
and xend? Some bindings for your out-of-tree bugtool (can't this be
converted to an in-tree tool written in C dumping out the information
which is then post-processed with python) ?

The original motivation was to get rid of the "superpages" option when
building a pv-domU. If I have to keep xend compatibility I can't
remove it.


Juergen

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