Re: [Xen-cim] Feedback needed for libvirt new APIs

[Jim Fehlig <jfehlig@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Daniel Veillard wrote:

>  Hi,
>
> could you check that the suggested APIs there are enough to implement that
> notion of defined but not running domains needed for CIM ?
>  https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2006-April/msg00043.html
>  
Looks good.  I do have a question about the following point:

- new state for defined non-running domains showing in virNodeGetInfo

virDomainState enumeration contains VIR_DOMAIN_SHUTOFF.  Looking at the 
code I see that this value gets assigned to state field in virDomainInfo 
structure when xend claims the vm is dying.  Should there be a more 
explicit state for dying?  It seems like VIR_DOMAIN_SHUTOFF would be 
more appropriate for the "defined but not running" vm state, although I 
have no problem with VIR_DOMAIN_[POWERED_OFF | NOT_RUNNING | INACTIVE | 
DISABLED].
The XML will have to expand (as discussed previously) to accommodate 
other guest types, e.g. hvm guests.  Also, I like  the virDomainCreate() 
API.  Not sure how you want to handle creating hvm guests without first 
defining.  Currently the API is virDomainCreateLinux(), which is only 
restrictive in its name assuming the implementation could parse xmlDesc 
parameter containing hvm config.
Regards,
Jim

_______________________________________________
Xen-cim mailing list
Xen-cim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-cim