Re: [Xen-devel] Fwd: Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] libxl: call hotplug scripts from libxl for vbd

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] Fwd: Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] libxl: call 
hotplug scripts from libxl for vbd"):
> On Thu, 2012-04-26 at 14:02 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I think we need to think about these timeouts.  At the very least
> > they're policy which should probably not be hardcoded in libxl; and
> > arguably people might want to be able to specify infinite ("I trust my
> > guest or driver domain and never want to pull the rug out from under
> > its feet") or zero ("this guest or driver domain has gone wrong and I
> > want it killed, now").
> 
> Unless the same is going to be true of the eventual solution (which I
> suppose it may well be?) we should be wary of over engineering the
> interim solution for 4.2.

I guess.  Also xend's poor behaviour in this area (failing hotplug
timeouts) provides something of an excuse...

> > Perhaps it would be better to do things the other way around, and have
> > an env var for the case where we're _not_ calling the script from
> > udev ?  After all, udev config is configuration (at least on my
> > distros) which the user may not update when the software is updated.
> 
> It was my suggestion to do it this way so that we don't end up with a
> vestigial env var which must always be set for no real reason after
> we've removed the udev path altogether.

When we have "removed the udev path altogether" we will still need to
have something to prevent trouble if the udev rules remain for some
reason.

> I don't really mind though, we could live with that vestigial thing, or
> have another, easier, transition a few releases down the line.

The vestigial thing can indeed eventually go away.

Ian.

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