WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [xen-devel][PATCH 2/5] Xl interface change plus changes to code it i

To: Kamala Narasimhan <kamala.narasimhan@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [xen-devel][PATCH 2/5] Xl interface change plus changes to code it impacts
From: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 14:41:14 +0000
Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 06:41:55 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1297175897.9388.114.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Organization: Citrix Systems, Inc.
References: <4D50628A.2000307@xxxxxxxxx> <1297175897.9388.114.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 2011-02-08 at 14:38 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 21:22 +0000, Kamala Narasimhan wrote:
> > Attached are the changes made to xl disk related interface per earlier 
> > discussion.  Please let me know if there are further comments/issues to fix.
> 
> Please can you include a full/standalone commit message describing the
> change and the reasons for it etc, The reference to "earlier discussion"
> is likely to be lost with time.
> 
> Did we decide to leave DISK_BACKEND_DEFAULT (i.e. libxl chooses based on
> the image type, host's backend support etc) for 4.2? I don't mind if we
> did but does that make "block-dev-type" as described in patch 1/5
> non-optional? (and therefore not really deprecated)

Maybe this is handled in xl by patch 3/5?

(I should really apply the patch and read the result instead of trying
to decode the meaning from the patch form)

Ian.


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