Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH 2/6] libxl: stop using libxl__xs_mkdir() for ~/control/shutdown

[Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Jackson [mailto:Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 24 November 2015 16:35
> To: Paul Durrant
> Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Stefano Stabellini; Ian Campbell; Wei Liu
> Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH 2/6] libxl: stop using libxl__xs_mkdir() for
> ~/control/shutdown
> 
> Paul Durrant writes ("RE: [RFC PATCH 2/6] libxl: stop using libxl__xs_mkdir()
> for ~/control/shutdown"):
> > [Ian Jackson]
> > > Paul Durrant writes ("RE: [RFC PATCH 2/6] libxl: stop using
> libxl__xs_mkdir()
> > > for ~/control/shutdown"):
> > > > [Ian Jackson:]
> > > > > Maybe it would be easier to rename libxl__xs_mkdir to
> > > > > libxl__xs_mknode ?  (It's probably too late to rename XS_MKDIR.)
> > > >
> > > > There is still the need to set the path to an empty value though, which
> is
> > > not implicitly done by the XS_MKDIR.
> > >
> > > Under what circumstances would this path not contain an empty value
> > > after XS_MKDIR ?
> >
> > In this case I believe you are correct, but my feeling was that
> > people reading the code would be lulled into a false sense of
> > security that XS_MKDIR always did the right thing to initialize a
> > new path.
> 
> I'm not sure I follow this argument.  What did you think of my idea
> of renaming libxl__xs_mkdir to libxl__xs_mknode ?
> 

The issue, as I said, is the initial state of the node. If you use XS_MKDIR 
then it is not guaranteed to be empty. If you use XS_WRITE then it is and I 
think that is the correct semantic here (even though we happen to get away with 
it at the moment). I'm happy with the function rename, but would you be happy 
with the change in semantic?

  Paul

> Ian.

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