| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/3] libxl stubdom API cleanup
On 08/07/10 15:18, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 15:03 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010, Vincent Hanquez wrote:
On 07/07/10 17:53, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
I though we wanted to make stubdoms transparent to libxenlight users,
why do you want to expose them now?
From the users yes, from the libxenlight users (aka developers) no.
It's also a good way to get the policy out of libxenlight. For example the
32mb value which might or might not change in future.
Fair enough.
I ack the whole series then.
Is it necessary to pull the mechanism out along with the policy though?
Necessary is quite a strong word.
Could the libxl user not specify one of nostubdom, stubdom or
libxlchooses (the default?) and let the internals of libxl take care of
actually starting it etc?
Starting a stubdom or not, imply 2 very different side effects (e.g.
memory wise). Separating the API give better error reporting, more room
for action (e.g. creating a domain without stubdom if you don't have
those N mb to spare), and it also simplify the ocaml bindings not having
to encode complex semantics on the ocaml side.
--
Vincent
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home