From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: "local" communications
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 16:55:25 -0500
Message-ID: <42B0A3CD.60505@us.ibm.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0506151543560.27038@chimarrao.boston.redhat.com>
	<42B08E8A.9090609@us.ibm.com> <42B09E1E.3060709@us.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com>
In-Reply-To: <42B09E1E.3060709@us.ibm.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
To: Nivedita Singhvi <niv@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Lon Hohberger <lhh@redhat.com>, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

Nivedita Singhvi wrote:

> UDP or raw sockets will be somewhat better, although AF_UNIX
> would be best of all (albeit with its own constraints).

I was thinking of a raw interface although a UDP-like protocol would be 
kind of neat (so that you could do multiplexing).

> Which datagram service, Anthony?  Having a small lib like this
> would be a good idea, although the benefit would be in the details,
> and of course, depending on how many apps we need to support that
> we don't want to modify...

I must admit I've not put much thought into it.  What are your thoughts?

Regards,

Anthony Liguori