Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH/RFC] don't include <xen/sysctl.h> in libxl.h

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 2011-10-07 at 18:43 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Guido Günther writes ("[Xen-devel] [PATCH/RFC] don't include <xen/sysctl.h> 
> in l> Hi,
> > I'm unsure if libvirt qualifies as "node control tool":
> 
> Not in this context.
> 
> > In file included from /tmp/usr/include/libxl.h:137:0,
> >                  from libxl/libxl_conf.c:28:
> > /tmp/usr/include/xen/sysctl.h:31:2: error: #error "sysctl operations are 
> > intended for use by node control tools only"
> > In file included from /tmp/usr/include/xen/sysctl.h:35:0,
> >                  from /tmp/usr/include/libxl.h:137,
> >                  from libxl/libxl_conf.c:28:
> > 
> > If not it makes sense to remove the include from libxl.h and include it
> > in xl_cmdimpl.c directly. This allows libvirt to include libxl.h again
> > without defining __XEN_TOOLS__.
> 
> I think neither libxl.h nor xl_cmdimpl should drag in sysctl.h this
> way.
> 
> xl needs them because of this:
> 
>     if (info.phys_cap & XEN_SYSCTL_PHYSCAP_hvm)
>         printf(" hvm");
>     if (info.phys_cap & XEN_SYSCTL_PHYSCAP_hvm_directio)
>         printf(" hvm_directio");
> 
> Either libxl should proxy these kinds of flags,

I agree. I think the correct thing is for libxl to parse the raw data
into separate info.hvm, info.hvm_directio etc booleans, much like we do
for dominfo.

>  or the flags should be
> moved to a public header file, or all libxl callers should
> automatically get __XEN_TOOLS__.
> 
> Ian.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel



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