From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tim Deegan Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] Add V4V to Xen Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 15:56:08 +0100 Message-ID: <20120614145608.GG90181@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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jean Guyader Cc: Ian Campbell , Jean Guyader , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org 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. :) Tim.