[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH REPOST v19 1/2] virtio-crypto: Add virtio crypto device specification
> -----Original Message----- > From: Halil Pasic [mailto:pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com] > Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 9:08 PM > Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH REPOST v19 1/2] virtio-crypto: Add virtio > crypto device specification > > > > On 09/18/2017 02:13 PM, Gonglei (Arei) wrote: > >> Destroy does not need to specify queue_id. That means session_id's aren't > >> queue scoped from namespace perspective. The question remains what is > >> queue_id good for, and whether a session type op request should be > >> rejected if the the session id originates from a session creation > >> request specifying a different dataqueue (not the dataqueue containing > >> the given request)? > >> > > My original idea about the queue_id is using the queue_id to specify which > > datequeue of the following data requests will be used. But after deep > thinking, > > I find that the queue_id is superfluous, and the current code in QEMU also > > don't use the queue_id value as well. That's because the we can use > session_id > > to find the pervious session information and get the current dataqueue id > > from the used virtqueue . > > > > So maybe we should drop the queue_id this time. > > > > > > Sounds reasonable to me. We can make it reserved and ignored in > the specification. Linux uses it, but it's always set to 0 as we only > support one data-queue (if I'm not wrong). So reserved and must be zero > is an option too. > Makes sense to keeping compatibility. Thanks, -Gonglei
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]