OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

virtio-comment message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [virtio-comment] Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 1/2] spec/vhost-user: Introduce secondary channel for slave initiated requests

On 04/25/2017 07:55 PM, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
Hi Wei,

On 04/24/2017 10:05 AM, Wei Wang wrote:
On 04/14/2017 05:03 PM, Marc-André Lureau wrote:

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 5:53 PM Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com <mailto:maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>> wrote:

    Hi Marc-André,

    On 04/11/2017 03:06 PM, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
    > Hi
    > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:10 PM Maxime Coquelin
    > <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com <mailto:maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
    <mailto:maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>>> wrote:
    >     This vhost-user specification update aims at enabling the
    >     slave to send requests to the master using a dedicated socket
    >     created by the master.
    >     It can be used for example when the slave implements a device
    >     IOTLB to send cache miss requests to the master.
> The message types list is updated with an "Initiator" field to
    >     indicate for each type whether the master and/or slave can
    >     initiate the request.
    >     Signed-off-by: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com
    >     <mailto:maxime.coquelin@redhat.com
    > This is very similar to a patch I proposed for shutdown slave
    > requests:
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2016-04/msg00095.html

Indeed, thanks for pointing this out, I wasn't aware of your series.

    I find your proposal of having dedicated messages types
    (VHOST_USER_SLAVE_*) cleaner.


    Are you ok if I handover your patch, and replace

They are very similar, I suggest you update your patch with the best of both.

I suppose you came to the same conclusion with me that trying to make the communication both ways on the same fd would be quite difficult, although it's a bit strange that the qemu implementation forces the design of the protocol in some direction.

When would you get the implementation patch ready? Thanks.

I sent second version of the RFC on April 14th, which comprises the

Thanks, Maxime. I was trying to make the connection bidirectional
which was reported as problematic due to the possibility of race (though
I think it can be solved by re-sending the msg in that rare case).

Anyway, hope to see you guys' second channel based implementation to
be merged soon. I would also consider to switch to use it then.


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]