On Thu, 27 Jul 2017, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> >> This all looks very similar to previous patches. Can it be factored out?
> > You are right that the pattern is the same for all commands:
> > - get a request
> > - fill the request
> > - possibly do something else
> > - wait
> > however each request
>> This all looks very similar to previous patches. Can it be factored out?
> You are right that the pattern is the same for all commands:
> - get a request
> - fill the request
> - possibly do something else
> - wait
> however each request is different, the struct and fields are different.
> Ther
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 7/25/2017 5:22 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > Send PVCALLS_BIND to the backend. Introduce a new structure, part of
> > struct sock_mapping, to store information specific to passive sockets.
> >
> > Introduce a status field to keep track of the st
On 7/25/2017 5:22 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
Send PVCALLS_BIND to the backend. Introduce a new structure, part of
struct sock_mapping, to store information specific to passive sockets.
Introduce a status field to keep track of the status of the passive
socket.
Introduce a waitqueue for the
Send PVCALLS_BIND to the backend. Introduce a new structure, part of
struct sock_mapping, to store information specific to passive sockets.
Introduce a status field to keep track of the status of the passive
socket.
Introduce a waitqueue for the "accept" command (see the accept command
implementa
