[Xen-tools] Re: xenbus block device support

[Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 2005-08-10 at 19:32 +0100, Christian Limpach wrote:
> - store updates from xend don't use transactions and the code in the
>   drivers to handle this short coming is complicated.  On the other
>   hand it should make the drivers more robust.

This is really irritating.  It's so easy to use the C API, and yet the
Python bindings seem to make a mess of it.  I wonder if a
straight-through API would serve xend better?

Kernel code can paper over this for the moment, but in general it will
be unreliable: we will derive some information about the device from
presence or lack of certain nodes.

Only one piece of feedback from reading the patches:
> -int xenbus_register_driver(struct xenbus_driver *drv);
> +int xenbus_register_frontend_driver(struct xenbus_driver *drv);

I left this as "xenbus_register_driver" in my tree, since not every
xenbus driver (think shared LAN driver) is a frontend; a backend implies
a frontend but not vice versa.  Minor nitpick.

Thanks!
Rusty.
-- 
A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver -- Richard Braakman


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