From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] Add V4V to Xen
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 16:35:56 +0100
Message-ID: <20120614153556.GI90181@ocelot.phlegethon.org>
References: <1338476832-26653-1-git-send-email-jean.guyader@citrix.com>
	<1338558477.17466.121.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
	<20120607094225.GB15139@spongy.cam.xci-test.com>
	<20120607114031.GP70339@ocelot.phlegethon.org>
	<20120607153657.GX70339@ocelot.phlegethon.org>
	<20120613104858.GC23207@boiler.cam.xci-test.com>
	<20120613114427.GA21809@ocelot.phlegethon.org>
	<CAEBdQ93xnCFQzGTAsizYEVq+nUUp-xqnRJ_aoqt6pojD7MTc-Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<20120614145608.GG90181@ocelot.phlegethon.org>
	<20120614151043.GB24063@spongy>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20120614151043.GB24063@spongy>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jean Guyader <jean.guyader@citrix.com>
Cc: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>, Jean Guyader <jean.guyader@gmail.com>, "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

At 16:10 +0100 on 14 Jun (1339690244), Jean Guyader wrote:
> On 14/06 03:56, Tim Deegan wrote:
> > At 11:55 +0100 on 14 Jun (1339674908), Jean Guyader wrote:
> > > Are you talking about having different version of V4V driver running
> > > in the same VM?
> > 
> > Yes.
> > 
> > > I don't think that is a problem they both interact with Xen via
> > > hypercall directly so if they follow the v4v hypercall interface it's
> > > all fine.
> > 
> > AFAICS if they both try to register the same port then one of them will
> > silently get its ring discarded.  And if they both try to communicate
> > with the same remote port their entries on the pending lists will get
> > merged (which is probably not too bad).  I think the possibility for
> > confusion depends on how you use the service.  Still, it seems better
> > than the xenstore case, anyway. :)
> > 
> 
> Not silently, register_ring will return an error.

Will it?  It looks to me like v4v_ring_add just clobbers the old MFN
list.

Tim.