Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 4/7] xl/libxl: add a blkdev_start parameter

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 2012-04-23 at 18:40 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2012, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-04-20 at 15:04 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > On Tue, 17 Apr 2012, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > > Stefano Stabellini writes ("[Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 4/7] xl/libxl: add a 
> > > > blkdev_start parameter"):
> > > > > Introduce a blkdev_start in xl.conf and pass it to
> > > > > libxl_domain_create_* and all the way through libxl_run_bootloader and
> > > > > libxl__device_disk_local_attach.
> > > > 
> > > > Surely this should be passed in the domain config structure rather
> > > > than being an adhoc parameter.
> > > 
> > > I don't think so, see below.
> > > 
> > > > If the problem with that is that it really ought to be host-global and
> > > > come from xl.conf, then perhaps we need another config struct.  But
> > > > really I think that's overkill.  There is nothing wrong with taking
> > > > parameters from xl.conf and putting them in the libxl domain config.
> > >  
> > > Another host-global config struct is definitely overkill, but we cannot
> > > really pass this parameter in the libxl domain config, because this
> > > option has nothing to do with the domain config.
> > > It would be confusing and incorrect.
> > 
> > You could argue that "domain config" was actually as much about details
> > on how to build the guest as it was about the "domain config" as such.
> > Members of that struct like the device model version, xsm ssid, disable
> > migrate, cpupool id, etc could all be argued to fit into the same "grey
> > area".
> 
> What about a new libxl_domain_build_info parameter?

Sure, when I say "domain config" I think I probably mean
"libxl_domain_config or one of the member therein"...

Ian.



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel