Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] libxl: Use xenbus to communicate with xenstore if the socket fails

[Mihir Nanavati <mihirn@xxxxxxxxx>]

Done.

~M

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 2:03 AM, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Fri, 2010-12-10 at 09:55 +0000, Mihir Nanavati wrote:
> Fair enough - is this something like what you had in mind?

Almost. You don't need two bits to encode the boolean writeable property
-- I reckon should just ditch XS_OPEN_READWRITE since its the default
and equivalent to the absence of XS_OPEN_READONLY. The common case
should be to pass flags == 0 and get a read+write connection.

Ian.

>
> ~M
>
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 1:48 AM, Ian Campbell
> <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>         On Fri, 2010-12-10 at 09:38 +0000, Mihir Nanavati wrote:
>         >
>         >
>         > On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 1:07 AM, Ian Campbell
>         >
>
>         >         For future flexibility should we consider passing a
>         flags
>         >         argument and defining "XS_OPEN_READONLY 1<<0"
>         instead of
>         >         having an ro argument?
>         >
>         > Sure, we could do it, but I'm not too sure what other modes
>         we could
>         > have for opening, let alone ones that might be used
>         simultaneously in
>         > a bit field ;)
>
>
>         There's no downside to using a flag field now, even if no
>         compelling use
>         cases come to mind right now and it might avoid an API change
>         in the
>         future.
>
>         One vague thought I had was that I recently added a
>         "nonreentrant" flag
>         to libxc for use in language bindings which like to control
>         threading
>         themselves. Some sort of "no watches" flag might be useful in
>         the future
>         for similar reasons.
>
>         >         I don't suppose you feel like running sed over the
>         tree to
>         >         convert the
>         >         in tree users, do you ;-)
>         >
>         >
>         > Could do, but I'd rather we get the interface finalized
>         first ;)
>
>
>         Sure.
>
>         > Is there anything one specially needs to take into
>         consideration when
>         > replacing them in the bindings?
>
>
>         I can't think of any -- try it and if it isn't obviously
>         broken it's
>         probably fine ;-)
>
>         Ian.
>
>
>
>

libxenstore_domain.patch
Description: Text Data

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