From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 18:57:55 -0600 From: "Ronald G. Minnich" To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] 8c question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Topicbox-Message-UUID: 637828be-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Sat, 9 Jul 2005, Charles Forsyth wrote: > not if i start to wonder about the surrounding software, when such > sloppy assumptions are made in something as important as the interface. > i'd already thought, glancing at it months ago, that there seemed to be > rather a lot of interface, which also made me wonder, but i'd made a > mental note to revisit it when i had more time. we have been trying and failing to get the xen guys interested in 9p as the backbone comms for inter-domain communication in Xen, both dom0->domU and domU->domU. What we're lacking is anyone with a time to write the proof-of-concept implementation. I wish we could get it done, because the inter-domain comms in xen just keep getting more and more complex. It's been hard to even argue that you could use the same open/read/write/close interface for a disk and an ethernet device. "Linux doesn't do that ...". So we have a disk virtual device and an ethernet virtual device that are very, very different in implementation, even though it's basically a 2-way shared-memory fifo queue in each case. I really think they could be the same. ron