From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <13426df10711080842v2a47ebc6jfdb17390dab185e8@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu,  8 Nov 2007 08:42:20 -0800
From: "ron minnich" <rminnich@gmail.com>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] From our "not quite grasping the concept" file
In-Reply-To: <1d8207a7813237f3f1241e0c5a274228@coraid.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <a4e6962a0711080810q5b32a487nc25b5ec6be79037@mail.gmail.com>
	<1d8207a7813237f3f1241e0c5a274228@coraid.com>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: efb2995c-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Nov 8, 2007 8:33 AM, erik quanstrom <quanstro@coraid.com> wrote:
> > > are 9p mesages really the right vehicle for this?  9p messages
> > > provides a serialized and in a standard byte order.  this requires
> > > byte reordering (on intel) and copying.  but are these really needed?
> > > the guest and host are on the same platform, so the guest can
> > > pass pointers to the host.  for the same reason, integers don't need
> > > reformatting.
> > >
> >
> > 9p is the right organizational structure.  The details of marshalling
> > and pass-by-copy versus pass-by-reference are transport issues.  Lucho
> > and I have been playing with zero-marhsalling/zero-copy transport
> > variants of 9P for virtualized environments.
> >
> >           -eric
>
> perhaps i'm being too pedantic, but 9p is defined by how it marshals data.


You guys lost me. The header fields are in a certain byte order, but
when did the data start being byte-reordered? Have I been missing this
reordering all these years? I sure never implemented it in my code ...
which worked fine between Alpha and x86.

ron