On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 15:31 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 14:40 +0100, Jiageng Yu wrote:
> > > diff -r 37c77bacb52a tools/libxl/libxl.idl
> > > --- a/tools/libxl/libxl.idl Mon May 23 17:38:28 2011 +0100
> > > +++ b/tools/libxl/libxl.idl Wed Jun 01 03:24:57 2011 +0100
> > > @@ -196,6 +196,7 @@
> > > ("dom_name", string),
> > > ("device_model_version", libxl_device_model_version),
> > > ("device_model_stubdomain", bool),
> > > + ("device_model_linux_stubdomain", bool),
> > > ("device_model", string, False, "if you set this you must set
> > > device_model_version too"),
> > > ("saved_state", string),
> > > ("type", libxl_domain_type),
> >
> > I think what we actually want here is a single device_model_type
> > Enumeration, values are something like "process", "stub-linux",
> > "stub-minios", rather than multiple device_model_XXX_stubdom booleans.
>
> indeed
>
>
> > I'm not convinced device_model_type is a good name, hopefully someone
> > can suggest something better. (device_model_mode??)
>
> some suggestions:
>
> 1) device_model_class
> 2) device_model_deployment
> 3) device_model_instance
>
> I vote for 3)
I don't think deployment or instance has the right meaning here. class
is better but still doesn't feel right.
maybe ..._mode?
</bikeshed>
Ian.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home