Re: [PATCH v11 0/3] virtio-vsock: SOCK_SEQPACKET description

[Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>]

On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 4:12 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 03:06:54PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 13 2022, Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 12:34:20PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > >>> Otherwise maybe we should write in the spec that if F_SEQPACKET is set
> > >>> this means that stream is supported even if F_STREAM is not set.
> > >>
> > >>Yes, if that works, it would probably be the less ugly option.
> > >
> > > Okay, let's go for F_STREAM (even Michael's comment seems to agree with
> > > that).
> > >
> > > Do you think we need to write this implication into the specification,
> > > or do we leave it to the implementation to solve this transient problem?
> >
> > I would add something like "if F_SEQPACKET has been negotiated, the
> > [device|driver] MUST act as if F_STREAM has also been negotiated".
>
> I don't think it's necessary really. A couple of months of drivers
> do not constitute a legacy that we have to maintain for ever if
> the failure mode is graceful enough.
> Certainly not for the driver,
> and even for device I'd make it MAY, i.e. device can allow
> a driver to create stream sockets without negotiating properly.

Ack, I'll use MAY and only for the device in v12.

Thanks,
Stefano