Re: [Xen-devel] [DRAFT 1] XenSock protocol design document

[Stefano Stabellini <stefano@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 8 Jul 2016, David Vrabel wrote:
> On 08/07/16 15:16, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > 
> > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/7908799/xns/connect.html
> 
> Are you really guaranteeing full POSIX semantics for all these calls?
> And not say, POSIX-like except where Linux decides to differ because
> POSIX is dumb?
> 
> How is the guest (which expects the semantics of its own OS) going to
> know that connect(2) to an external IP is going to behave differently to
> say connect(2) to localhost?
>
> a) The difficulties in reconciling the differences in  behaviour and
> features between remoted system calls and local ones.
> 
> b) The difficulty in fully specifying (and thus fully implementing) the
> PV interface.

I'll refrain from replying to these points because they are about the
implementation, rather than the protocol, which it will be discussed
separately when I manage to publish the design document of the drivers.
I am confident we can solve these issue if we work together
constructively. I noticed you are not making any suggestions on how to
solve these issues, which is good form when doing reviews.

I want to address the following point first:


> c) My belief that most of the advantages of this proposal can be
> achieved with smarts in the backend.

By backend do you mean netfront/netback? If so, I have already pointed
out why that is not the case in previous emails as well as in this
design document.

If you remain unconvinced of the usefulness of this work, that's OK, we
can agree to disagree. Many people work on things I don't believe
particularly useful myself. I am not asking you to spend any time on
this if you don't believe it serves a purpose. But please let the rest
of the community work constructively together.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel