|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
xen-devel
[Xen-devel] Re: ocaml?? why??
To: |
Vincent Hanquez <vincent.hanquez@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Subject: |
[Xen-devel] Re: ocaml?? why?? |
From: |
John Levon <levon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Date: |
Mon, 6 Apr 2009 11:38:51 -0400 |
Cc: |
Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "George S. Coker, II" <gscoker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Patrick Colp <pjcolp@xxxxxxxxx>, Alex Zeffertt <Alex.Zeffertt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Delivery-date: |
Mon, 06 Apr 2009 08:39:23 -0700 |
Envelope-to: |
www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
In-reply-to: |
<49DA1AEE.7070108@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
List-help: |
<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help> |
List-id: |
Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com> |
List-post: |
<mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com> |
List-subscribe: |
<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe> |
List-unsubscribe: |
<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe> |
References: |
<C5FA6BCE.2C57B%gscoker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <f45b39c0-8c4a-41d9-bd07-0e48a87aa6d4@default> <20090406103321.GA26380@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <49DA08E4.4000303@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20090406135155.GA7928@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <49DA1AEE.7070108@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Sender: |
xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.9i |
On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 04:08:30PM +0100, Vincent Hanquez wrote:
> >>with advanced transaction merging capability in the C version would have
> >>been a major pain, compared to how (almost) easy it was in OCaml.
> >
> >So, I'm interested: why?
> >
> The initial reason was getting rid of the on-disk database that also
> work as the mechanism for transaction merging (a language with a GC is
Whilst I agree that xenstored's transaction-via-cp is incredibly gross,
you can get most of the benefit with a two-line patch to move it onto
tmpfs (as we have done for quite some time).
> same thing that the ocaml code does become trivial in C. either you need
> to modify every operation to understand some kind of modification list
> so that the tree get modified only at commit time (compare to now, at
> every operations)
Well exactly. It's hot air since I haven't actually written it, but a
modification list doesn't seem particularly complex to me.
regards
john
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: ocaml?? why?? (was: [Xen-devel] caml stubdom crashes), (continued)
- Re: ocaml?? why?? (was: [Xen-devel] caml stubdom crashes), Anil Madhavapeddy
- Re: ocaml?? why?? (was: [Xen-devel] caml stubdom crashes), John Levon
- [Xen-devel] Re: ocaml?? why??, Vincent Hanquez
- [Xen-devel] Re: ocaml?? why??, John Levon
- [Xen-devel] Re: ocaml?? why??, Vincent Hanquez
- [Xen-devel] Re: ocaml?? why??, Patrick Colp
- [Xen-devel] Re: ocaml?? why??,
John Levon <=
- [Xen-devel] Re: ocaml?? why??, Vincent Hanquez
- Re: [Xen-devel] caml stubdom crashes, Alex Zeffertt
- Re: [Xen-devel] caml stubdom crashes, George S. Coker, II
- Re: [Xen-devel] caml stubdom crashes, Patrick Colp
- Re: [Xen-devel] caml stubdom crashes, Alex Zeffertt
Re: [Xen-devel] caml stubdom crashes, Alex Zeffertt
|
|
|
|
|