On Tue, 2015-11-24 at 17:20 +0000, Paul Durrant wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ian Jackson [mailto:ian.jack...@eu.citrix.com] > > Sent: 24 November 2015 16:35 > > To: Paul Durrant > > Cc: xen-de...@lists.xenproject.org; Stefano Stabellini; Ian Campbell; > > Wei Liu > > Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH 2/6] libxl: stop using libxl__xs_mkdir() for > > ~/control/shutdown > > > > Paul Durrant writes ("RE: [RFC PATCH 2/6] libxl: stop using > > libxl__xs_mkdir() > > for ~/control/shutdown"): > > > [Ian Jackson] > > > > Paul Durrant writes ("RE: [RFC PATCH 2/6] libxl: stop using > > libxl__xs_mkdir() > > > > for ~/control/shutdown"): > > > > > [Ian Jackson:] > > > > > > Maybe it would be easier to rename libxl__xs_mkdir to > > > > > > libxl__xs_mknode ? (It's probably too late to rename > > > > > > XS_MKDIR.) > > > > > > > > > > There is still the need to set the path to an empty value though, > > > > > which > > is > > > > not implicitly done by the XS_MKDIR. > > > > > > > > Under what circumstances would this path not contain an empty value > > > > after XS_MKDIR ? > > > > > > In this case I believe you are correct, but my feeling was that > > > people reading the code would be lulled into a false sense of > > > security that XS_MKDIR always did the right thing to initialize a > > > new path. > > > > I'm not sure I follow this argument. What did you think of my idea > > of renaming libxl__xs_mkdir to libxl__xs_mknode ? > > > > The issue, as I said, is the initial state of the node. If you use > XS_MKDIR then it is not guaranteed to be empty.
Just to satisfy my curiosity, how can it be non-empty? What else could it possibly contain, just garbage? Or maybe this is the behaviour of XS_MKDIR on a path/node which already exists? Ian. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel