Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 15/15] libxl: Re-implement domain_suspend_device_model using libxl__ev_qmp

[Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Anthony PERARD writes ("Re: [PATCH v5 15/15] libxl: Re-implement 
domain_suspend_device_model using libxl__ev_qmp"):
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 04:28:55PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Does this statefile fd really need to be a carefd ?  Is it a pipe or a
> > file ?  If it is a file, is it of nontrivial size ?
> 
> Yes, it needs to be caredfd, because that's what the libxl__ev_qmp API
> wants. I don't know yet if it is a good idee to have the _ev_qmp API
> only takes fd. Do you think it's fine to have libxl__ev_qmp API takes a
> simple fd and let callers handle the fd the way they want?
> 
> (In previous version of the patch series, libxl__ev_qmp used to close
> the carefd. That's not the case anymore, and that carefd is only read,
> so I don't think it matter anymore which kind it is between int and
> carefd.)

Ah.  In OOP terms I think the API should take the narrowest class that
has all the required methods.  In this case that means that since you
don't need to close the fd you shouldn't prejudge whether it's a
carefd or not - so you should make it an int.

Regardless of whether it's an fd or a carefd, I think the qmp API
caller needs to keep the thing open until the qmp async operation is
done, right ?

Feel free to try to talk me out of this view.  I was asking the
question to provoke thought, not necessarily to push a particular
opinion.

Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel