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

[Vincent Hanquez <vincent.hanquez@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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