WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

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

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