On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 09:26:33AM -0400, Nick Rosbrook wrote:
> Add a DeviceFunction class and describe prototypes for
> libxl_device_nic_add/remove in libxl_types.idl.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nick Rosbrook <rosbro...@ainfosec.com>
> --
> This is mostly to serve as an example of how the first patch would be
> used for function support in the IDL.
> ---
> tools/libxl/idl.py | 8 ++++++++
> tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl | 6 ++++++
> 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/libxl/idl.py b/tools/libxl/idl.py
> index 1839871f86..15085af8c7 100644
> --- a/tools/libxl/idl.py
> +++ b/tools/libxl/idl.py
> @@ -386,6 +386,14 @@ class CtxFunction(Function):
>
> Function.__init__(self, name, params, return_type, return_is_status)
>
> +class DeviceFunction(CtxFunction):
> + """ A function that modifies a device. """
I guess that meant to be used by all function generated with the C macro
LIBXL_DEFINE_DEVICE_ADD() and LIBXL_DEFINE_DEVICE_REMOVE(), isn't it?
I wonder if if we could get away with the type of device ("nic") and the
type of the parameter (`libxl_device_nic`) and have DeviceFunction been
a generator for both `add` and `remove` functions (and `destroy`).
Also there are functions like libxl_devid_to_device_nic() aren't those
of type DeviceFunction as well ? But they don't takes any `ao_how`.
There is also `libxl_device_nic_list{,_free}`, but it is to handle a
list of libxl_device_*, so it could be kind of related to DeviceFunction, but
not quite. But maybe I'm going to far :-).
> diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl b/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl
> +libxl_device_nic_add = DeviceFunction("device_nic_add",
> + ("nic", libxl_device_nic))
> +
> +libxl_device_nic_remove = DeviceFunction("device_nic_remove",
> + ("nic", libxl_device_nic))
> +
Thanks,
--
Anthony PERARD
