Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v6 00/11] libxl: ocaml: improve the bindings

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [PATCH v6 00/11] libxl: ocaml: improve the bindings"):
> On Tue, 2013-12-10 at 14:10 +0000, George Dunlap wrote:
> > We've decided that PVH dom0 and ARM "physical address space leak" fixes 
> > are blockers for strategic reasons.  Is there a good reason that we 
> > should consider updated OCaml bindings in the same light?
> 
> I think strategic reasons is a good way to put it. Our strategy over the
> last several releases has been to move toolstack consumers of Xen over
> to the libxl APIs instead of libxc and locally coded stuff. We're doing
> pretty well on that from with xl/xm and libvirt and xapi is the final
> major consumer of the old interfaces.

I agree with this.

> > At this point, the fact that there is only one downstream user 
> > (XenServer) is an argument *against* its inclusion: there is very little 
> > benefit, as XS can simply carry the patches if they want to.
> 
> I think this argument could be made either way. At the moment we might
> as well git rm tools/ocaml/libs/xl for 4.4 because it is of basically no
> use as it stands.

I think this is the clincher argument for me.  Granting a freeze
exception is a balancing exercise between risk and benefit.  If the
code is already probably too broken to use, and definitely not
suitable for use by its primary consumers, then the risk of breaking
it is small.

Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel