Re: [Xen-API] New API Document and C Bindings

[Ronald Perez <ronpz@xxxxxxxxxx>]

John Levon wrote on 09/14/2006 09:08:36 PM:

> On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 01:50:54AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> 
> > > In that case I would suggest introducing a privileged flag
for the VM 
> > > classes. Maybe that ends up being a distinguishing factor
between VMs like 
> > > dom-0, driver domains and other guests.
> > 
> > Except that its not really representative of what's going on
- it implies
> > a discrete set of privilege levels can be assigned to domains.
Domains
> 
> More generally it sounds like their needs to be two classes, one a
sub-class of
> the other. Certain things (vcpu pinnings, resource utilisation data)
belong in
> the superclass, other stuff in the other. Certainly the API would
need to allow
> people to identify what /kind/ of domain a particular representation
is.
> 
> regards
> john
> 

I think (thought) this sub-class concept is exactly
what was briefly discussed at the Xen Summit. The context then also included
the possibility (which I believe Ian had supported in his roadmap) that
a guest VM could [someday] donate some of it's resources to create another
VM, a child VM, and yet [optionally] still retain some level of control
over that child VM and it's resources -- much as a host does for it's domU's.
Further, guest VMs (domU's) may also be running CIM providers for various
things, and those providers could likely be virtualization unaware (they
would think the system they were managing was a host). So could we be looking
at a recursive definition?

-Ron
_______________________________________________
xen-api mailing list
xen-api@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-api