[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [virtio-comment] Re: [RFC PATCH v5 2/2] virtio-vsock: SOCK_SEQPACKET description
On 21.04.2021 12:54, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 04:24:36AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 09:45:23AM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 09:04:47AM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote: >>>> On 13.04.2021 22:55, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 05:22:44PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote: >>>>>> On 13.04.2021 16:10, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 03:53:29PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote: >>>>>>>> This adds description of SOCK_SEQPACKET socket type >>>>>>>> support for virtio-vsock. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Arseny Krasnov <arseny.krasnov@kaspersky.com> >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> virtio-vsock.tex | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++----- >>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> diff --git a/virtio-vsock.tex b/virtio-vsock.tex >>>>>>>> index ad57f9d..00e59cc 100644 >>>>>>>> --- a/virtio-vsock.tex >>>>>>>> +++ b/virtio-vsock.tex >>>>>>>> @@ -16,7 +16,10 @@ \subsection{Virtqueues}\label{sec:Device Types / Socket Device / Virtqueues} >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> \subsection{Feature bits}\label{sec:Device Types / Socket Device / Feature bits} >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -There are currently no feature bits defined for this device. >>>>>>>> +\begin{description} >>>>>>>> +\item VIRTIO_VSOCK_F_SEQPACKET (0) SOCK_SEQPACKET socket type is >>>>>>>> + supported. >>>>>>> Does it make sense to only support seqpacket and not stream? >>>>>>> I am guessing not since seqpacket is more or less >>>>>>> a superset ... >>>>>> You mean, this sentence must be "Both SOCK_SEQPACKET and SOCK_STREAM types >>>>>> >>>>>> are supported"? >>>>> No. I am asking whether we want a feature bit for SOCK_STREAM too? >>>> I think there is no practical sense in SOCK_STREAM bit, because SOCK_SEQPACKET >>>> >>>> is stream + message boundaries and potential DGRAM is completely different >>>> >>>> thing. Of course i can implement it in my patches and also add it to spec patch, but i see only >>>> >>>> esthetic in this: all three socket types have own feature bits. >>>> >>> I agree that it may make sense to have a bit for SOCK_STREAM. For example we >>> may have devices in the future that want to implement only DGRAM for >>> simplicity. >>> >>> I'm just worried about backwards compatibility with current devices where we >>> don't have any feature bit. >>> >>> Should we add a negative feature flag? (e.g. VIRTIO_VSOCK_F_NO_STREAM) >>> I don't like it much, but I can't think of anything better. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Stefano >> We can simply specify that if there are no feature bits at all then >> stream is assumed supported. >> > oh yeah, that sounds like a good idea! So it is not necessary for my SEQPACKET patchset to support STREAM in both kernel and spec? Thank, Arseny > Thanks, > Stefano > > > This publicly archived list offers a means to provide input to the > OASIS Virtual I/O Device (VIRTIO) TC. > > In order to verify user consent to the Feedback License terms and > to minimize spam in the list archive, subscription is required > before posting. > > Subscribe: virtio-comment-subscribe@lists.oasis-open.org > Unsubscribe: virtio-comment-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org > List help: virtio-comment-help@lists.oasis-open.org > List archive: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/virtio-comment/ > Feedback License: https://www.oasis-open.org/who/ipr/feedback_license.pdf > List Guidelines: https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/mailing-lists > Committee: https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/virtio/ > Join OASIS: https://www.oasis-open.org/join/ > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]