From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vincent Hanquez Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] libxl stubdom API cleanup Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 18:18:23 +0100 Message-ID: <4C36085F.6010206@eu.citrix.com> References: <1278507656-7745-1-git-send-email-vincent.hanquez@eu.citrix.com> <4C35B3E1.2010106@eu.citrix.com> <1278598709.28432.589.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1278598709.28432.589.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Ian Campbell Cc: Xen Devel , Stefano Stabellini List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org 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