From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Campbell Subject: Re: FIFO-based event channel ABI design (draft B) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 15:19:26 +0000 Message-ID: <1361200766.1051.5.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> References: <511E46FD.3010605@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <511E46FD.3010605@citrix.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: David Vrabel Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , Wei Liu List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Fri, 2013-02-15 at 14:32 +0000, David Vrabel wrote: > Except for a lack of information of the required memory barriers (to be > included in draft C), this should now be completely enough to start on a > prototype (any volunteers? ;). I think the real question is whether you as creator of the design are going to be working on the implementation. That would the usual progression of things. As I see it we have on the one hand a substantially complete implementation of one solution and a design draft of the other with nobody signed up to even implement a prototype at the moment. Given that I think we should surely go with the available solution for 4.3, which does meet our current needs AFAICT (most of the stuff which the other design adds is gravy AFAICT). If something better comes along (be that the FIFO design or something else) in the future then we can consider it on its merits then. Ian.