Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/3] libxl stubdom API cleanup

[Vincent Hanquez <vincent.hanquez@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 09/07/10 11:51, Tim Deegan wrote:
> At 11:44 +0100 on 09 Jul (1278675850), Vincent Hanquez wrote:
>    
> > On 09/07/10 09:17, Tim Deegan wrote:
> >      
> > > > Is it necessary to pull the mechanism out along with the policy though?
> > > >
> > > >          
> > > Or, if we're taking some mechanism out, couldn't we take _all_ the
> > > mechanism out?
> > >        
> > Which one do you have in minds ?
> >      
> It looks like your patch leaves some "create a stubdom" functions in the
> libxl API.  I'd have thought libxl should either handle stubdoms
> entirely or not at all.  (Unless stubdom creation needs some low-level
> grunge that will uglify the libxl API if it's exposed that far up - I
> can't think of any except PRIV_FOR though).
>    
I think that either is fine from my point of view; as long as I don't 
have to capture two very different semantics (starting a program | 
starting a domain) in one call.
--
Vincent

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel