[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Libvir] [PATCH][RFC] libvirt ldoms support



John Levon wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 04:19:47PM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
> 
>>> That's hardly fair. There's a big 'RFC' in the subject and Ryan
>>> explicitly said they weren't ready. Eunice has been responding to all
>>> your comments. Who's been talking of "final solutions"?
>>>
>> To quote Eunice:
>>
>>> I don't think the first option (to change the LDoms Manager XML
>>> format to be based on the libvirt XML format) is a feasible one
>>> since LDoms has been released public and some tools/applications
>>> are already based on the LDom Manager's XML interfaces.
>> How can that be interpreted as anything but 'final'? An RFC is not
>> about implementation details, it should be about the big picture.
>> Already shipping a supported product based on an XML format that
>> was not discussed upstream prior is about as final as it gets, IMO.
> 
> All Eunice is saying (pretty clearly IMO) is that the ldoms XML format
> is used by an entire set of software already *unrelated to libvirt*.
> That is Sun can't change their 'ldm' binary  etc. to use libvirt's
> format. I wouldn't be surprised if it pre-dates the libvirt project
> altogether.
> 
> You could equally complain about Xen's .py files. It's the same
> situation.
> 
> regards
> john

Apologies in that case. I misunderstood what was being implied here.
I thought the xml format posted was being actively built by the
ldom libvirt patch, and not that it was a format which predated
the libvirt support. The reality is still a regrettable situation
(analogous to libvirt simply dumping a xen config file on a dumpxml
command), but far better than the former.

- Cole


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]