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

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 2010-12-10 at 11:10 +0000, Mihir Nanavati wrote:
> Is this one ok? Thanks!

The way the API information is now presented in xs.h isn't that orderly
or clear on what is deprecated. I think it would be better to add
"deprecated please use xs_open()" to each to the comment blocks before
the deprecated functions and to put xs_open and xs_close before those
functions, with a suitable comment block describing their use.

> 
> ~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.
>         >         >
>         >         >
>         >         >
>         >         >
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         
>         
>         
> 



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