On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 18:18 +0100, Vincent Hanquez wrote:
> On 08/07/10 15:18, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 15:03 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> >> On Thu, 8 Jul 2010, Vincent Hanquez wrote:
> >>> On 07/07/10 17:53, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> >>>> I though we wanted to make stubdoms transparent to libxenlight users,
> >>>> why do you want to expose them now?
> >>>>
> >>> From the users yes, from the libxenlight users (aka developers) no.
> >>> It's also a good way to get the policy out of libxenlight. For example the
> >>> 32mb value which might or might not change in future.
> >>
> >> Fair enough.
> >> I ack the whole series then.
> >
> > Is it necessary to pull the mechanism out along with the policy though?
>
> Necessary is quite a strong word.
>
> > Could the libxl user not specify one of nostubdom, stubdom or
> > libxlchooses (the default?) and let the internals of libxl take care of
> > actually starting it etc?
>
> Starting a stubdom or not, imply 2 very different side effects (e.g.
> memory wise). Separating the API give better error reporting, more room
> for action (e.g. creating a domain without stubdom if you don't have
> those N mb to spare), and it also simplify the ocaml bindings not having
> to encode complex semantics on the ocaml side.
Fair enough.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home