Re: [PATCH 0/3] libxl stubdom API cleanup

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

On 08/07/10 15:18, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 15:03 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Jul 2010, Vincent Hanquez wrote:
>>> On 07/07/10 17:53, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>>> I though we wanted to make stubdoms transparent to libxenlight users,
>>>> why do you want to expose them now?
>>>>
>>>    From the users yes, from the libxenlight users (aka developers) no.
>>> It's also a good way to get the policy out of libxenlight. For example the
>>> 32mb value which might or might not change in future.
>>
>> Fair enough.
>> I ack the whole series then.
>
> Is it necessary to pull the mechanism out along with the policy though?

Necessary is quite a strong word.

> Could the libxl user not specify one of nostubdom, stubdom or
> libxlchooses (the default?) and let the internals of libxl take care of
> actually starting it etc?

Starting a stubdom or not, imply 2 very different side effects (e.g. 
memory wise). Separating the API give better error reporting, more room 
for action (e.g. creating a domain without stubdom if you don't have 
those N mb to spare), and it also simplify the ocaml bindings not having 
to encode complex semantics on the ocaml side.

-- 
Vincent