Re: Scalable Event Channel ABI design (draft A)

[Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>]

On 06/02/2013 11:32, "George Dunlap" <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com> wrote:

>> 4. Get the 3-level ABI to a mergable state. In parallel develop a
>> prototype of the FIFO-based ABI.  When the prototype is ready or the 4.3
>> freeze is here, evaluate it and make a decision then.
> 
> Just to clarify, the difference between #1 and #4 is that in #4 we hold
> off on the merge, to delay committing to a specific course of action
> until later?
> 
> That seems at first blush to be a pretty safe option.  But I think it's
> worth pointing out that in practice the end result is likely to be that
> we just go with #1 eventually anyway: if the FIFO ABI can't be finished
> in 4 months giving it all our effort, can we really expect it to be
> finished in any less time while polishing up the 3-level ABI?
> 
> I was going to say, "There's no particular reason to merge the 3-level
> ABI sooner rather than later", but of course there is: it allows
> considerably longer and wider testing.
> 
> No conclusion here, just adding to the mix of things to consider. :-)

How many man-weeks do we think David's design would take to get to draft
implementation? I mean honestly I would have thought that a straight
two-week run at it would be a reasonable estimate -- the places it plugs in
in hypervisor and guest kernel are pretty clean and well defined.

This depends on a man having the weeks to spend on it of course!

 -- Keir