This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] add a way to disable xen's udev script.

To: Vincent Hanquez <Vincent.Hanquez@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] add a way to disable xen's udev script.
From: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 20:49:27 +0100
Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 12:50:04 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4DEFCC40.3000103@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Organization: Citrix Systems, Inc.
References: <4DEFA993.1020803@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1307554945.4176.47.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4DEFCC40.3000103@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 2011-06-08 at 20:23 +0100, Vincent Hanquez wrote:
> On 06/08/2011 06:42 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-06-08 at 17:55 +0100, Vincent Hanquez wrote:
> >> Add a way to disable xen's udev scripts by using a dummy file.
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > Does one of "chmod -x" or "rm" not suffice?
> Because it provides the ability to install side-by-side multiple 
> toolstacks, including one that doesn't use the xen's xend udev scripts.

> chmod -x and rm would do the same things (provided udev isn't unhappy), 
> but modifying files of package A from another package B is highly 
> frowned upon.

Dropping down a file which unilaterally disables critical behaviour in
another package requires isn't really much better, you might as well
just add a Conflicts: and be done with it.

the Debian package maintainer proposed a scheme by which xm and xl could 
coexist. Adding "xapi" (or whichever other toolstack you are considering) as an 
option to that scheme and having all the sets of hotplug scripts check that 
their scheme is active seems like a reasonable solution to me.

Of course in the longer term we should attempt to converge the hotplug
scripts of the different toolstacks into a single set of (e.g. libxl
based) scripts.


Xen-devel mailing list