IPC: Initial commit of Inter-process communication#535
Draft
alistair23 wants to merge 1 commit into
Draft
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@wdc.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is a RFC for adding IPC support to libtock-rs.
The idea here is to support the Tock kernel IPC mechanism. Although running multiple libtock-rs apps is difficult, it is still possible so I think we should support IPC.
As well as that on ARM it's not difficult to run a libtock-rs application that communicates with libtock-c applications.
The current subscribe design in libtock-rs doesn't work with the IPC subscribe mechanism. I'm not sure why that's the case (I can't remember and I don't see if discussed in the design constraints).
This adds a new subscribe allows runtime configurable subscribe numbers. We could instead edit the current one or any other ideas anyone has.
The code compiles but it untested, currently just looking for comments on how to handle this