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