Re: semantics of GETDOMAININFO

[Kip Macy <kip.macy@gmail.com>]

That seems reasonable - but I find its lack of uniformity a bit grating. 

Maybe instead of having the current domain be first fit, we could add
a "next_domid" field. That way when "xm list" and the like want to
enumerate, provided they start zero, they can keep querying until
next_domid == -1. I can't think of a case when one wouldn't enumerate
the domains starting at zero. So, at least superficially, it seems
like a reasonable alternative.

I'm willing to accept the possiblity that I'm just nitpicking so I
won't push it.

                                          -Kip


On 5/8/05, Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> On 8 May 2005, at 22:39, Kip Macy wrote:
> 
> > One of the things that I've always thought was weird, but didn't pay
> > too close attention to is the fact that GETDOMAININFO will return a
> > valid result even if we give it a domid that is no longer valid.
> > Looking at the code we get back the first valid domain after the domid
> > we pass in.
> >
> > What is the reason for this design choice? When I request the
> > attributes of a process I don't get the attributes for the next pid up
> > with a pid field set to the process id of the process I actually got
> > the attributes for.
> 
> Easy enumeration when we don't know which domain id's are in use. There
> are other ways to allow for enumeration that might be neater.
> 
>   -- Keir
> 
>