From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Scott Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/11] libxl: ocaml: improve the bindings Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 15:48:16 +0000 Message-ID: <52A737C0.4010701@eu.citrix.com> References: <1386602250-29866-1-git-send-email-rob.hoes@citrix.com> <1386681620.30568.3.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> <52A720E4.3060509@eu.citrix.com> <52A72668.7070208@eu.citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: George Dunlap Cc: Rob Hoes , Ian Jackson , Ian Campbell , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 10/12/13 15:42, George Dunlap wrote: > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 2:34 PM, David Scott wrote: >> On 10/12/13 14:10, George Dunlap wrote: >>> >>> On 12/10/2013 01:20 PM, Ian Campbell wrote: >>>> I think the arguments made there still stand, in short it would be >>>> awesome if xapi could move to using libxl on top of 4.4 and the risks >>>> are almost entirely contained within this use case, which cannot be >>>> satisfied by the code as it stands today. >>> >>> >>> Except that that basically calls into question what a "code freeze" is >>> at all. At some point we just need to say, "No more, this is what we >>> have; from now on we work on bug fixes." >>> >>> We've decided that PVH dom0 and ARM "physical address space leak" fixes >>> are blockers for strategic reasons. Is there a good reason that we >>> should consider updated OCaml bindings in the same light? >>> >>> At this point, the fact that there is only one downstream user >>> (XenServer) is an argument *against* its inclusion: there is very little >>> benefit, as XS can simply carry the patches if they want to. >> >> >> A nit-pick: > > Not exactly. ;-) > >> the downstream user is really 'xenopsd', part of the xapi >> project. The xapi/xenopsd code is in XenServer and, increasingly, available >> for other Linux distros (we're trying to do the right thing and make the >> code easy to package). XenServer could easily carry some patches, but the >> other distros probably won't. The only workarounds to keep xapi/xenopsd >> working on non-XenServer distros that I can think of are (i) not using libxl >> at all [a shame, obviously]; or (ii) depending on a fresh package, >> 'libxl-ocaml-bindings-fixed' which would be a fork of the in-tree code with >> the fixes applied and named 'xenlight2' [ugly, not totally sure if it's even >> possible]. It seems odd to me to decide to ship code which the only user >> can't actually use ;-) > > Right -- so you are arguing that there is in fact a strategic reason > to get this into 4.4: you want xapi to be able to be easy to package > and install into distros, and having broken ocaml bindings is a major > blocker for that. xapi packages for distros are already in a pretty > dire state, and not having support until 4.5 could be disastrous. > > Would you agree with that assessment? Yes, I think that's fair. Thanks, Dave