Re: [PATCH] tools: remove unused wrappers for python

[Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>]

On 10/06/2015 05:45 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-10-06 at 11:30 -0400, Zhigang Wang wrote:
>> On 10/06/2015 11:26 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2015-10-06 at 17:21 +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>> On 10/06/2015 05:11 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 2015-10-06 at 16:51 +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/06/2015 03:40 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 2015-10-06 at 12:39 +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And for the record, if my google-fu doesn't fail me, it's
>>>>>>>> possible to
>>>>>>>> load shared library into python interpreter using "dl" module
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> 2.7
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> "ctypes" module in 3.x.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Possible, but not especially convenient since you need to
>>>>>>> convert
>>>>>>> the C
>>>>>>> prototype manually, plus the result is not necessarily very
>>>>>>> "pythonic".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I could totally see why people would prefer these bindings (or
>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>> argument
>>>>>>> for us providing a ctypes based wrapper).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How often is such a debugging interface being used? Please
>>>>>> consider
>>>>>> the amount of code (my patch removed nearly 3000 lines of code!)
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> the availability of the xl wrapper.
>>>>>
>>>>> My understanding was that this was used by the "xen-bugtool" stuff
>>>>> in
>>>>> XenServer, so for actual functionality (gathering debug info) and
>>>>> not
>>>>> debugging (I supposed that the reference to being used for
>>>>> debugging was
>>>>> due to the name of the tool).
>>>>
>>>> And this functionality isn't available via the xl bindings?
>>>
>>> I don't know, we'll have to wait for those who are using it to chime
>>> in.
>>>
>>> Ian.
>>
>> IanC: I remember you said xl bindings has some design issue and should
>> not be used. Is it still the case today?
>
> Yes.
>
> Sorry, I read Juergen's original "via the xl bindings" as "via libxl", i.e.
> by using the library directly and forgot about the need for python bindings

Uuh, too bad.

So I should change my patch to remove the xl bindings? ;-)

And what about xc bindings? What do I have to keep? Everything for xm
and xend? Some bindings for your out-of-tree bugtool (can't this be
converted to an in-tree tool written in C dumping out the information
which is then post-processed with python) ?

The original motivation was to get rid of the "superpages" option when
building a pv-domU. If I have to keep xend compatibility I can't
remove it.


Juergen