[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 0/4] docs: Document xenstore paths
Paul Durrant writes ("RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 0/4] docs: Document xenstore paths"): > [Ian:] > > And the documents themselves should then clearly state what the > > behaviour should be on the part of a toolstack which finds the > > information missing, or set to a particular values. > > Yes, I think that would be useful to add. In trying to implement the > associated changed in libxl I can see it would be valuable :-) Right. In particular, your specification needs to be compatible with the current implementation in libxl, as well as with a future implementation which actually uses these new features :-). > > Likewise, they should document the expected behaviour of a guest which > > finds that the entries are missing or cannot be written for > > permissions reasons. > > In general from the guest PoV there's not a lot it can do if a path > is not writable, but I'll call that out. Right. But presumably you want to say that the guest may (try to) write them even if they don't already exist (that's right, isn't it?), but that the guest MUST NOT fail just because it can't write them. If it can't write them it should simply carry on (maybe making a note in an obscure and non-alarming logfile somewhere). thanks, Ian. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |