From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keir Fraser Subject: Re: FIFO-based event channel ABI design (draft B) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 20:21:26 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1361200766.1051.5.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1361200766.1051.5.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.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: Ian Campbell , David Vrabel Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , Wei Liu List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 18/02/2013 15:19, "Ian Campbell" wrote: > 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. Oh this is certainly true. I assumed David was planning to implement his stuff, but if that's not the case, it's nice but not really going to affect the forward progress of the existing 3-level patches into xen-unstable. -- Keir > Ian. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xen.org > http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel