> On 1 Dec 2022, at 14:22, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>
> On 01/12/2022 11:59, Christian Lindig wrote:
>>> On 30 Nov 2022, at 16:54, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>>
>>> Inter-domain event channels are always a pair of local and remote ports.
>>> Right now the handling is asymmetric, caused by the fact
On 01/12/2022 11:59, Christian Lindig wrote:
>> On 30 Nov 2022, at 16:54, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>
>> Inter-domain event channels are always a pair of local and remote ports.
>> Right now the handling is asymmetric, caused by the fact that the evtchn is
>> bound after the associated Domain object
> On 30 Nov 2022, at 16:54, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>
> Inter-domain event channels are always a pair of local and remote ports.
> Right now the handling is asymmetric, caused by the fact that the evtchn is
> bound after the associated Domain object is constructed.
>
> First, move binding of
> On 30 Nov 2022, at 16:54, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>
> Inter-domain event channels are always a pair of local and remote ports.
> Right now the handling is asymmetric, caused by the fact that the evtchn is
> bound after the associated Domain object is constructed.
>
> First, move binding of the
Inter-domain event channels are always a pair of local and remote ports.
Right now the handling is asymmetric, caused by the fact that the evtchn is
bound after the associated Domain object is constructed.
First, move binding of the event channel into the Domain.make() constructor.
This means the
