Re: [PATCH] add xl init scripts

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>]

On 06/04/2010 08:26 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> Would it be better to create /etc/init.d/{xenstored,xenconsoled}
> and /etc/sysconfig/{xenstored,xenconsoled} and have those used
> consistently no matter which toolstack was in use? Or maybe a single
> xendaemons script+config would do. In either case /etc/init.d/xend could
> be run only on systems which want xend, similarly for /etc/init.d/xl (if
> such a thing is still necessary after my comments below).
>   

Perhaps.  xl doesn't need any setup per-se, except for "xl rename 0
Domain-0" to avoid an ugly (null).

> Is a network script really required for xl? I think it would be more in
> keeping with how xl works to require that the distro configuration be
> setup correctly to create bridges etc e.g. correctly
> setup /etc/network/interfaces under Debian
> or /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-* under RH derived distros etc.
>   

Yes, yes, yes.  Its easy to get Redhat/Fedora to set up a bridge as part
of its normal network setup.  There's no need for us to duplicate it.

> Similarly I think xl should assume that the platform has been correctly
> configured with a vif hotplug script with the correct behaviour? It's
> not clear to me why tools/hotplug/Linux/xen-backend.rules needs to use a
> different scheme for vif devices to all the other backend types. The
> script there could be a symlink to one of several variants if necessary,
> there's no reason for it to be a config item in xl (or xend for that
> matter)
>
> It seems like we are now replicating some of the worst bits of xend
> poking around behind the back of the distro config files in xl.
>   

Agree, unless as Stefano mentions, there's a need for some kind of
per-domain network setup (bridges, vlans, firewall rules, etc?).

    J