[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 COLOPre 11/13] tools/libxl: rename remus device to checkpoint device
On Mon, 2015-06-15 at 17:24 +0100, Wei Liu wrote: > On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 09:45:54AM +0800, Yang Hongyang wrote: > > > > > > On 06/12/2015 10:57 PM, Ian Jackson wrote: > > >Wei Liu writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 COLOPre 11/13] tools/libxl: > > >rename remus device to checkpoint device"): > > >>On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 02:30:46PM +0100, Wei Liu wrote: > > >>>On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 11:43:15AM +0800, Yang Hongyang wrote: > > >>>>- (-18, "REMUS_DEVOPS_DOES_NOT_MATCH"), > > >>>>- (-19, "REMUS_DEVICE_NOT_SUPPORTED"), > > >>>>+ (-18, "CHECKPOINT_DEVOPS_DOES_NOT_MATCH"), > > >>>>+ (-19, "CHECKPOINT_DEVICE_NOT_SUPPORTED"), > > >>> > > >>>You should add two new error numbers. > > >>> > > >> > > >>And in that case you might also need to go through all places to make > > >>sure the correct error numbers are return. I.e. old remus code path > > >>still returns REMUS error code and new CHECKPOINT code path returns new > > >>error code. > > >> > > >>I merely speak from API backward compatibility point of view. If you > > >>think what I suggest doesn't make sense, please let me know. > > > > > >To me this line of reasons prompts me to ask: what would be wrong with > > >leaving the word REMUS in the error names, and simply updating the > > >descriptions ? > > > > > >After all AFIACT the circumstances are very similar. I don't think it > > >makes sense to require libxl to do something like > > > rc = were_we_doing_colo_not_remus ? CHECKPOINT_BLAH : REMUS_BLAH; > > > > > >Please to contradict me if I have misunderstood... > > > > COLO and REMUS both are checkpoint device. We use checkpoint device layer > > as a more abstract layer for both COLO and REMUS, come to the error code, > > these can be used by both COLO and REMUS. So we don't distinguish if we > > are doing COLO or REMUS, uses are aware of what they're executing(colo > > or remus). > > > > Right. So continue using REMUS_ error code is fine. Seems like it would also be OK to switch the name and then in libxl,h #ifdef LIB_API_VERSION < 0xWHENEVER #define REMUS_BLAH CHECKPOINT_BLAH #define ... #endif _If_ we think the new names make more sense going fwd... _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |