Re: [PATCH] add a way to disable xen's udev script.

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

On 06/10/2011 08:13 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> No it does not go straight to any (completely undefined) step 2 and it
> in no way allows toolstacks to dynamically work in parallel -- it allows
> your current pet project to unilaterally disable functionality in other
> existing toolstacks because that is convenient to you, without any
> consideration for the bigger picture or actual _real_ interop with other
> toolstacks or usecases.

dynamic as in = can be installed on disk in parallel.

There's no way to make two managed toolstacks run in parallel, so i 
wasn't using dynamic in this sense. the only sense i'm talking about is 
that you could have start the init script for XCP or Xend (or xl), and 
it would have clear/set the dummy file to enable/disable the udev script 
depending on whether you want the udev script running or not which is a 
toolstack properties.

So let's be clear, instead of having a way to interop which isn't great 
(not "actual real interop" reusing your word), we have no interop 
whatsoever.

> Furthermore I object to your characterisation of some toolstacks as
> "compat" and the one you are currently interested in as "new"/"modern".
> xl uses these udev scripts and is in no way a "compat" toolstack. You
> cannot simply deny the existence of other toolstacks, ignore their
> requirements and justify breaking their functionality by branding them
> legacy.

I simply characterised the toolstacks using a the new/modern udev 
mechanism i'm talking about as new/modern. compared to the toolstack 
that use the old mechanism as compat, since this was an attempt to keep 
both mechanisms in. this is *not* about the toolstack itself nor about 
branding them legacy.

> So what is your proposal for removing the need for udev (i.e. what is
> the so-called "step 3")? Unless you have specific concrete suggestions
> then we cannot build consensus around any move away from the udev
> scripts and all this talk is just hot air.
>
> And, to be frank, unless you have an plan to back it up with patches
> sooner rather than later[...]

This feature has been discussed with toolstack people, patch has been 
send to maintainers already and it's about to be committed in one case 
(on two) provided it pass my tests i've left running over the weekend.

> You aren't obliged to do any more work than you want. However it does
> not follow that we must take your original patch.

Of course. I never implied as such. Now, Let's give this thread and the 
patch a rest.

-- 
Vincent