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

[Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 9 Jul 2010, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Vincent Hanquez writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/3] libxl stubdom API 
> cleanup"):
> > 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.
> 
> I still disagree.  I think it would be better to hide this distinction
> as much as possible.
> 
> Your key motive seems to be some problem with the ocaml bindings.
> Perhaps you could explain that in more detail ?
 
I think Vincent wanted a different API to make memory accounting easier.

What about extending the current create_device_model API with a
more explicit stubdom flag, and a way to return the stubdom domid to the
caller?

Also the caller should be able to know in advance the amount of memory
used for the stubdom: another libxl function could be added for that
purpose.

Would that interface be flexible enough for you?

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