On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 05:00:47PM +0100, Pritesh Kothari wrote: > > I think it depends on exactly how you are doing it - best to just post the > > patches and we can discuss whether it looks reasonable then. Why did you > > dlopen() instead of just linking to it directly ? > > Basically my code depends on three libraries used in virtualbox namely: > VBoxXPCOMC.so, VBoxRT.so, VBoxXPCOM.so and if i link to them then these > dependencies would trickle down to other programs as well, for example: > virsh would need to be relinked, for that matter any program who depends on > libvirt with virtualbox support compiled in it would need to be relinked. so > currently i am trying to make as minimal change to any of the libvirt files > as possible and restrict my code to the following 6 files: vbox_driver.c/h > and vbox_conf.c/h. I am not sure if this approach is valid?
Perhaps you want to enable DRIVER_MODULES, which uses dlopen to open individual drivers. That way you don't need to dlopen the vbox modules, but libvirt apps don't need to know about them. regards john -- Libvir-list mailing list Libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
