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

[Mihir Nanavati <mihirn@xxxxxxxxx>]

Is this one ok? Thanks!

~M

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 2:45 AM, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Thanks but please put the deprecation comment in the header where
potential callers are mostly likely to see it.

Tiny nitpick: it should be "if (...)" not "if(...)".

On Fri, 2010-12-10 at 10:34 +0000, Mihir Nanavati wrote:
> 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