From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vincent Hanquez Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] libxl stubdom API cleanup Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 11:44:10 +0100 Message-ID: <4C36FD7A.1070303@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> <20100709081755.GC31695@whitby.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20100709081755.GC31695@whitby.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: Tim Deegan Cc: Ian Campbell , Xen Devel , Stefano Stabellini List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 09/07/10 09:17, Tim Deegan wrote: >> Is it necessary to pull the mechanism out along with the policy though? >> > Or, if we're taking some mechanism out, couldn't we take _all_ the > mechanism out? Which one do you have in minds ? > The idea of a stub domain doesn't seem like one that > libxl necessarily needs to know about. > yes, indeed. the stubdom create could move as a xl helper. On the ocaml side reimplementing stubdom create is a trivial composition of smaller libxl function (create/build/add devs) which are already bound. -- Vincent