On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 06:27:39AM -0400, Daniel Veillard wrote: > On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 06:22:58AM -0400, Daniel Veillard wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 04:08:50AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 04:05:53AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > > > Since the previous patch allows the remote daemon to serve all the functions > > > > of the current Xen Proxy driver, this patch simply removes the Xen proxy > > > > and its driver. > > > > > > Oh I should mention, I've only done minimal testing on this so far. I need > > > to do more extensive testing to ensure I didn't miss any edge cases in the > > > way apps were using the proxy. > > > > Just thinking about it, maybe test that the change doesn't end up doing > too much performance degradation. For example if instead of doing RPC to > proxy + hypercall, we end up doing RPC to daemon + PolicyKit (DBus RPC > + lookup) + say xend access, this may introduce some regression. I assume > all calls previously serviced by the proxy would still be allowed freely > without PolicyKit checking, right ? I'll check the performance again. Last time I did this, using UNIX sockets with the remote driver was pretty damn good. The policykit DBus hit is a one-time hit when the socket is opened, so negligable & no impact per-RPC call. Dan. -- |=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston. +1 978 392 2496 -=| |=- Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ -=| |=- Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/ -=| |=- GnuPG: 7D3B9505 F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 -=| -- Libvir-list mailing list Libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list