On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Ian Campbell
wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-02-09 at 13:59 +0200, Vitaly Chernooky wrote:
>
> > Guys, what do you think about using an Interface Description Language
> > such as Google Protocol Buffers or something like?
>
> After a bit of googling and reading it seems like
On Mon, 2015-02-09 at 13:59 +0200, Vitaly Chernooky wrote:
> Guys, what do you think about using an Interface Description Language
> such as Google Protocol Buffers or something like?
After a bit of googling and reading it seems like Google Protocol
Buffers includes a specific wire encoding, a la
Hi All!
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Roger Pau Monné
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I should probably have done this earlier because I've been aware of this
> issue for a long time (since I've started dealing with the PV blk
> protocol).
>
> The current way to describe PV protocols in Xen is very ineff
On Mon, 2015-02-09 at 12:01 +0100, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> El 05/02/15 a les 11.42, Ian Campbell ha escrit:
> > On Tue, 2015-01-20 at 13:47 +0100, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I should probably have done this earlier because I've been aware of this
> >> issue for a long time (since
El 05/02/15 a les 11.42, Ian Campbell ha escrit:
> On Tue, 2015-01-20 at 13:47 +0100, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I should probably have done this earlier because I've been aware of this
>> issue for a long time (since I've started dealing with the PV blk protocol).
>>
>> The current way
On Tue, 2015-01-20 at 13:47 +0100, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I should probably have done this earlier because I've been aware of this
> issue for a long time (since I've started dealing with the PV blk protocol).
>
> The current way to describe PV protocols in Xen is very inefficient
>
On Tue, 2015-01-20 at 14:21 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I am 100% in agreement with Roger's proposal. I think we should
> extend this principle to as much of the guest ABI as possible, not
> just PV protocols - it would be good to do it for guest-visible
> hypervisor and tools ABIs too.
Agreed, b
>>> On 20.01.15 at 15:00, wrote:
> On 20/01/15 13:48, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 20.01.15 at 14:39, wrote:
>>> It is far nicer to work from a document than to worry how another
>>> compiler might change the structure.
>> Compilers have (almost, i.e. leaving aside bitfields) no freedom in laying
Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] Guidelines for new PV protocol
submission"):
> On 20.01.15 at 14:39, wrote:
> > It is far nicer to work from a document than to worry how another
> > compiler might change the structure.
>
> Compilers have (almost, i.e. leaving
On 20/01/15 13:48, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 20.01.15 at 14:39, wrote:
>> It is far nicer to work from a document than to worry how another
>> compiler might change the structure.
> Compilers have (almost, i.e. leaving aside bitfields) no freedom in laying
> out structures - any platform's ABI de
>>> On 20.01.15 at 14:39, wrote:
> It is far nicer to work from a document than to worry how another
> compiler might change the structure.
Compilers have (almost, i.e. leaving aside bitfields) no freedom in laying
out structures - any platform's ABI defines how this needs to be done.
Or else cod
>>> On 20.01.15 at 13:47, wrote:
> I should probably have done this earlier because I've been aware of this
> issue for a long time (since I've started dealing with the PV blk protocol).
>
> The current way to describe PV protocols in Xen is very inefficient
> IMHO. Using C structs as "the descri
On 20/01/15 13:20, David Vrabel wrote:
> On 20/01/15 12:47, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I should probably have done this earlier because I've been aware of this
>> issue for a long time (since I've started dealing with the PV blk protocol).
>>
>> The current way to describe PV protocols
On 20/01/15 12:47, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I should probably have done this earlier because I've been aware of this
> issue for a long time (since I've started dealing with the PV blk protocol).
>
> The current way to describe PV protocols in Xen is very inefficient
> IMHO. Using C st
Hello,
I should probably have done this earlier because I've been aware of this
issue for a long time (since I've started dealing with the PV blk protocol).
The current way to describe PV protocols in Xen is very inefficient
IMHO. Using C structs as "the description" of a binary protocol seems
ve
15 matches
Mail list logo
