On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 11:04:17AM +1100, James Morris wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008, James Morris wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2008, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>
>
> > > * a virNodeInfo is a structure filled by virNodeGetInfo() and providing
> > > @@ -504,6 +567,10 @@ int virDomainSetMaxMemory
(virDomainPtr domain,
> > > int virDomainSetMemory (virDomainPtr domain,
> > > unsigned long memory);
> > > int virDomainGetMaxVcpus (virDomainPtr domain);
> > > +int virDomainGetSecLabel (virDomainPtr domain,
> > > + virDomainSecLabelPtr
seclabel);
> > > +int virDomainGetSecModel (virDomainPtr domain,
> > > + virDomainSecModelPtr
secmodel);
> >
> > I'm leaning two ways on this. On the one hand I could see the
> > virDomainGetSecModel being done against the node to match the
> > fact that we record it in the node capabilities XML, so perhaps
> > virNodeGetSecurityModel(virConnectPtr).
>
> Actually, this is a call to get the node information, so I think the name
> should be changed.
Btw, is 'Node' the correct placement for this information? IIUC, a node
is the physical system, whereas, the security model is a property of the
hypervisor, and there can be multiple hypervisors running on a node.
All the virNode calls take a virConnectPtr instance, which thus provides
the hypervisor context. So consider the virNode calls to be providing
info about the (hypervisor,host) tuple.
Daniel
--
|: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o-
http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|
|:
http://libvirt.org -o-
http://virt-manager.org -o-
http://ovirt.org :|
|:
http://autobuild.org -o-
http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|