Re: /proc/xen/xenbus supports watch?

[Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>]

On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 13:55 +0100, Christian Limpach wrote:
> On 9/14/05, Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote:
> > Patch for reading only (I subbed in NULL for the default store page for
> > the moment, since I know there's another patch out there which touches
> > this).
> 
> I really don't think that the multi-page approach is good and it's
> also orthogonal, i.e. we could have multiple connections but still
> want concurrent transactions on the same connection.  What's wrong
> with concurrent transactions on the same connection?

You're right it's orthogonal, but we really do want separate connections
for each client: they're logically separate, so overloading them on one
transport is going to be a hack.  Inside the kernel we do it to a
limited degree, but already have a proxy for handling watches and we
trust everyone to get it right and use One Big Lock.

Now, we still might want concurrent transactions for a single user, but
more likely we want to get rid of the "root of transaction" model
altogether, since noone likes it, and there's an unrelated issue with
NFS-root mounted store (it breaks horribly) that is likely to change our
underlying (on-disk directory-based) implementation.  Thoughts?

Rusty.
-- 
A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver -- Richard Braakman