On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Dario Faggioli <dario.faggi...@citrix.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-07-02 at 12:48 +0300, Vitaly Chernooky wrote: > > Hi all! > > > Hi, > > > > I have theoretical question. > > > Great, I love theoretical stuff! :-P > > > > What do you think about porting futexes or binder to XEN? > > > Ouch... That's *too* theoretical! :-) > > No, really, I know a bit about futexes [0], while I know nothing about > binder (I'll investigate). > > Actually, we don't even have mutexes _within_ the hypervisor, so I > struggle a bit to figure out how it would be useful to offer a similar > support to whatever is userspace for us (i.e., what futexes do, as far > as I can recall). > Yes, it is reasonable because mutexes are enough hi-level stuff. But futexes is not so hi-level ... So, that's why I was joking/saying about this being too much > theoretical: do you have a use case in mind where something like that > can help and be useful? If yes, I'd be interested in hearing about it. > As far as we can observe sometimes in this mailing list we get RFCs for new intercommunication mechanisms. If i'm not mistaken last one was Xen Sockets. It looks like existing mechanism are not enough useful for many people. It is the reason why I started to discuss this ideas. With best regards, > Regards, > Dario > > [0] http://www.akkadia.org/drepper/futex.pdf > -- > <<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere) > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli > Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK) > -- *Vitaly Chernooky | Senior Developer - Product Engineering and Development* GlobalLogic P *+380.44.4929695 ext.1136* M *+380.63.6011802* S cvv_2k www.globallogic.com http://www.globallogic.com/email_disclaimer.txt
_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
