Re: [PATCH 6/9] xenstore: don't start xenstore domain if already one is active

[Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>]

On 15/12/15 13:47, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-12-15 at 13:40 +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 15/12/15 13:32, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2015-12-15 at 13:28 +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>> On 15/12/15 13:23, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 2015-12-11 at 16:47 +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>>> Don't start a new xenstore domain in case one is already detected
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> be running.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>  tools/xenstore/init-xenstore-domain.c | 25
>>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>>>>>  1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/tools/xenstore/init-xenstore-domain.c
>>>>>> b/tools/xenstore/init-
>>>>>> xenstore-domain.c
>>>>>> index 068887c..0ca7eed 100644
>>>>>> --- a/tools/xenstore/init-xenstore-domain.c
>>>>>> +++ b/tools/xenstore/init-xenstore-domain.c
>>>>>> @@ -66,7 +66,8 @@ static int build(xc_interface *xch)
>>>>>>  	} else {
>>>>>>  		ssid = SECINITSID_DOMU;
>>>>>>  	}
>>>>>> -	rv = xc_domain_create(xch, ssid, handle, 0, &domid,
>>>>>> NULL);
>>>>>> +	rv = xc_domain_create(xch, ssid, handle,
>>>>>> XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_xs_domain,
>>>>>> +			      &domid, NULL);
>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn't this bit belong earlier on in the series?
>>>>
>>>> I can make this patch number 3 of the series, if you like.
>>>
>>> Not part of the patch which adds the setting?
>>
>> Hmm, do you really think so? Isn't the normal setup of a patch series
>> to split adding a new feature and using it to different patches?
> 
> Yes, but the title of this patch is "don't start xenstore if..." not "mark
> the xenstore domain as being such".
> 
> IOW I think a better commit log would be a valid alternative to splitting.

Yes, this makes sense.


Juergen