From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 COLOPre 11/13] tools/libxl: rename remus
 device to checkpoint device
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 11:53:20 +0100
Message-ID: <1434452000.13744.100.camel@citrix.com>
References: <1433734997-26570-1-git-send-email-yanghy@cn.fujitsu.com>
	<1433734997-26570-12-git-send-email-yanghy@cn.fujitsu.com>
	<20150612133046.GQ14606@zion.uk.xensource.com>
	<20150612133534.GR14606@zion.uk.xensource.com>
	<21882.62317.609108.131152@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
	<557E2E52.3070405@cn.fujitsu.com>
	<20150615162459.GI10177@zion.uk.xensource.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <20150615162459.GI10177@zion.uk.xensource.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Cc: eddie.dong@intel.com, wency@cn.fujitsu.com, andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, yunhong.jiang@intel.com, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>, xen-devel@lists.xen.org, guijianfeng@cn.fujitsu.com, rshriram@cs.ubc.ca, Yang Hongyang <yanghy@cn.fujitsu.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Mon, 2015-06-15 at 17:24 +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 09:45:54AM +0800, Yang Hongyang wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 06/12/2015 10:57 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > >Wei Liu writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 COLOPre 11/13] tools/libxl: rename remus device to checkpoint device"):
> > >>On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 02:30:46PM +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
> > >>>On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 11:43:15AM +0800, Yang Hongyang wrote:
> > >>>>-    (-18, "REMUS_DEVOPS_DOES_NOT_MATCH"),
> > >>>>-    (-19, "REMUS_DEVICE_NOT_SUPPORTED"),
> > >>>>+    (-18, "CHECKPOINT_DEVOPS_DOES_NOT_MATCH"),
> > >>>>+    (-19, "CHECKPOINT_DEVICE_NOT_SUPPORTED"),
> > >>>
> > >>>You should add two new error numbers.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>And in that case you might also need to go through all places to make
> > >>sure the correct error numbers are return. I.e. old remus code path
> > >>still returns REMUS error code and new CHECKPOINT code path returns new
> > >>error code.
> > >>
> > >>I merely speak from API backward compatibility point of view. If you
> > >>think what I suggest doesn't make sense, please let me know.
> > >
> > >To me this line of reasons prompts me to ask: what would be wrong with
> > >leaving the word REMUS in the error names, and simply updating the
> > >descriptions ?
> > >
> > >After all AFIACT the circumstances are very similar.  I don't think it
> > >makes sense to require libxl to do something like
> > >    rc = were_we_doing_colo_not_remus ? CHECKPOINT_BLAH : REMUS_BLAH;
> > >
> > >Please to contradict me if I have misunderstood...
> > 
> > COLO and REMUS both are checkpoint device. We use checkpoint device layer
> > as a more abstract layer for both COLO and REMUS, come to the error code,
> > these can be used by both COLO and REMUS. So we don't distinguish if we
> > are doing COLO or REMUS, uses are aware of what they're executing(colo
> > or remus).
> > 
> 
> Right. So continue using REMUS_ error code is fine.

Seems like it would also be OK to switch the name and then in libxl,h

#ifdef LIB_API_VERSION < 0xWHENEVER
#define REMUS_BLAH CHECKPOINT_BLAH
#define ...
#endif

_If_ we think the new names make more sense going fwd...