This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] Mini-OS to use evtchn_port_t for ports and other

To: Steven Smith <sos22@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] Mini-OS to use evtchn_port_t for ports and other improvements
From: ramsdell@xxxxxxxxx (John D. Ramsdell)
Date: 25 Jul 2006 20:14:32 -0400
Cc: ramsdell@xxxxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Grzegorz Milos <gm281@xxxxxxxxx>, sos22@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 17:14:59 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20060725102715.GA4351@xxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <ogt3bcszejg.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20060725102715.GA4351@xxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3
Steven Smith <sos22@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> This mostly looks like a pretty reasonable bit of cleanup, with just
> a few minor niggles.


Thank you for your considered opinions.  For most of your comments, I
plan to implement your suggestions precisely.  I'd like to discuss
just two of them.

> Why maybe_bind?  Do you ever expect to need to allocate an unbound
> event channel before you know what handler to use for it?

I wanted to capture the usual pattern of immediately binding a port
after it's allocated, without forcing programmers to follow that
pattern.  In the case of evtchn_bind_interdomain, you wondered why I
added the call to clear_event.  Should it be decided it should be
eliminated, the use of maybe_bind allows a programmer to still use the
function, but delay the binding until after the programmer calls

> > +    evtchn_port_t port = op.u.bind_interdomain.local_port;
> > +    clear_evtchn(port);          /* Without, handler gets invoked now! */
> Invoking the handler as soon as you bind the interdomain channel is
> a mostly-deliberate part of the interface.  If the other end makes
> notifications before you get around to binding they can get lost,
> and forcing the channel to fire as soon as you bind to it avoids
> some potential lost wakeups.

If the handler is invoke whenever the port is bound, there is no
information to be gained as a result of the first invocation of the
handler--as the programmer already knows when it will happen.  If it
is important to invoke the handler upon binding, why can't the
programmer simply follow the call the to evtchn_bind_interdomain with
a call to the evt_handler of type evt_handler_t with:

    (*evt_handler)(port, NULL, data);

where both port and data are already known for the call to the
function evtchn_bind_interdomain?  It's easy to simulate the case of a
handler call on binding with clear_evtchn included, but a pain to
handle the case in which one wants the handler to be invoked only when
a notification arrives, when it is omitted.


Xen-devel mailing list