From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761971AbYDSPCT (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Apr 2008 11:02:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751346AbYDSPCH (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Apr 2008 11:02:07 -0400 Received: from vena.lwn.net ([206.168.112.25]:33323 "EHLO vena.lwn.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750776AbYDSPCG (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Apr 2008 11:02:06 -0400 To: Andrew Morton Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Max Krasnyansky , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, Rusty Russell , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] /dev/vring: simple userspace-kernel ringbuffer interface. From: corbet@lwn.net (Jonathan Corbet) In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 18 Apr 2008 11:59:59 PDT." <20080418115959.6b8fdfa7.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 09:02:04 -0600 Message-ID: <8793.1208617324@vena.lwn.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > So I think it would be good to plonk the proposed interface on the table > and have a poke at it. Is it compat-safe? Is it extensible in a > backward-compatible fashion? Are there future-safe changes we should make > to it? Can Michael Kerrisk understand, review and document it? etc. > > You know what I'm saying ;) What is the proposed interface? So, I'm not Michael, but I *did* make an attempt to document this interface - user and kernel sides - so that it could be more easily understood: http://lwn.net/Articles/276856/ That was the previous posting, but a quick look suggests it hasn't changed *that* much in this round. jon