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 -- Libvir-list mailing list Libvir-list(a)redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list