Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 0/4] docs: Document xenstore paths

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul Durrant writes ("RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 0/4] docs: Document xenstore 
paths"):
> [Ian:]
> > And the documents themselves should then clearly state what the
> > behaviour should be on the part of a toolstack which finds the
> > information missing, or set to a particular values.
> 
> Yes, I think that would be useful to add. In trying to implement the
> associated changed in libxl I can see it would be valuable :-)

Right.  In particular, your specification needs to be compatible with
the current implementation in libxl, as well as with a future
implementation which actually uses these new features :-).

> > Likewise, they should document the expected behaviour of a guest which
> > finds that the entries are missing or cannot be written for
> > permissions reasons.
> 
> In general from the guest PoV there's not a lot it can do if a path
> is not writable, but I'll call that out.

Right.  But presumably you want to say that the guest may (try to)
write them even if they don't already exist (that's right, isn't it?),
but that the guest MUST NOT fail just because it can't write them.

If it can't write them it should simply carry on (maybe making a note
in an obscure and non-alarming logfile somewhere).

thanks,
Ian.

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