Re: [PATCH 08/11] libxl: Per-domain data storage for the convenience of the library user

[Vincent Hanquez <vincent.hanquez@eu.citrix.com>]

On 26/03/10 10:45, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Vincent Hanquez writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 08/11] libxl: Per-domain data storage for the	convenience of the library user"):
>> XCP doesn't need a "locking" mechanism that use the name in xenstore for
>> migration.
>
> This is an unreasonable response, and I think it goes to the heart of
> the problem here.
>
> xl is a first-class caller of libxl, not some second-rate unimportant
> thing.  Every requirement of xl on libxl is a real requirement.
>
> The real problem seems to me that you are only willing to agree to
> features and API properties which are useful for your "toolstacks",
> and not ones which are required for xl.  This is not acceptable.

libxl has been made to "make common the low level operations of actuals 
toolstacks", so that every toolstacks will share the same code base to 
avoid code duplication and also give user more flexibility to move 
between toolstacks.

Any others goals you have in mind, is a part of your own goals, not 
libxl's. Whilst i'm happy to see more assumptions removed to have even 
more generic code, adding assumptions on the other-hand, related to name 
in this case, is a non-starter.

-- 
Vincent