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

Re: [Libvir] [RFC] 0/3 Add Linux Container support to libvirt



Dan Smith wrote:
> DL> That makes sense to me.  I guess I'd lean towards leaving <init>
> DL> in the container block since a container isn't really starting a
> DL> new os image.  Perhaps Dan Smith has some comments on this...
> 
> Oh I *always* have some comments... :)
> 
> From the above example, <init> would be the only member of
> <container>, right?  That seems broken to me, unless there are other
> things planned to be in <container>.

Right.  For a container, <init> would be the only member of <os> as well
right?  At the moment, I don't know of anything else that we will be
adding to <container>.

> 
> In the context of a container, the value of <init> seems suited for
> the <os> block.  From the view of a component that consumes the
> libvirt XML interface, I think I'd prefer avoiding more domain-level
> nodes, and would rather the relevant information be packed into
> existing areas (such as <os> and <devices>) instead of adding a new
> one (<containers>).
> 

I guess my only hangup there is the case where the value of <init>
specifies something that is not an init like application.  In that case,
at least to me, it seems less suited there.  Of course, I don't know how
likely or feasible such a use would be.  I can definitely agree with your
comments from a consumers perspective.  I don't have a big problem with
moving <init> to the <os> block.

-- 
Best Regards,
Dave Leskovec
IBM Linux Technology Center
Open Virtualization


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