Hi,
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:23:04PM +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> Olaf Buddenhagen wrote 9 Sep 2011 00:45:44 +0200:
> Now i am puzzling whether i shall try to describe a struct in MIG or
> whether i shall serialize and de-serialize to and from a byte array.
Unless there is some practical dif
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 08:54:09AM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> olafbuddenha...@gmx.net, le Mon 12 Sep 2011 20:15:36 +0200, a écrit :
> > > Why no "in" or "out" before parameter "device" ?
> >
> > Well, I would have said that the first parameter is just special.
> > (It's the port on whic
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 02:10:22AM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> I've digged a bit in the libdiskfs syncing issue at shutdown. The
> scenario is the following:
>
> - halt or reboot is issued
> - S_startup_reboot() gets called in init which
> - calls reboot_system(), which
> - calls n
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 04:49:55PM +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> i had to learn that a kvm emulated CD-ROM appears as /dev/hd2.
Is there no option to control this? In such things qemu often offers a
choice...
OTOH, machines able to run Mach natively are indeed more likely to have
an ATAPI
olafbuddenha...@gmx.net, le Fri 23 Sep 2011 03:26:21 +0200, a écrit :
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 08:54:09AM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > olafbuddenha...@gmx.net, le Mon 12 Sep 2011 20:15:36 +0200, a écrit :
>
> > > > Why no "in" or "out" before parameter "device" ?
> > >
> > > Well, I would h
olafbuddenha...@gmx.net, le Fri 23 Sep 2011 03:13:53 +0200, a écrit :
> (Doing manual marshalling is extra effort; and it will have to change
> again when moving to userspace drivers
Why would it have to change again?
Samuel
Hi,
Olaf Buddenhagen:
> Unless there is some practical difficulty, I *strongly* suggest to
> describe the individual struct members with MIG, rather than doing the
> marshalling (serialisation) by hand.
Regrettably MIG explicitely refuses to model struct entrails.
mig.ps page 3:
"There is no way
Hi,
i began to sketch serialization from struct to byte array.
Important question:
Am i allowed to make the RPC ugly if it reduces system load ?
There seems to be an inavoidable performance penalty with my naive
idea to allow an arbitrary reversible transformation from struct
to byte array.
In
I think the fear is of resource exhaustion, but there are so many of those
problems, this would not be the first place to look IMO.
Thomas
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Roland McGrath wrote:
> The whole point of OOL data is that it is relatively cheap to transfer huge
> quantities. So I don'
