Re: [virtio-dev] [RFC] Upstreaming virtio-wayland (or an alternative)

[Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@collabora.com>]

Hi Gerd,

On Thu, 27 Feb 2020 15:43:22 +0100
Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com> wrote:

>   Hi,
> 
> > > > Can you provide more detail about the envisioned scope of this
> > > > framework?  
> > >
> > > The scope is "generic message+FD passing" interface, which is pretty
> > > much what virtio-wl provides.  
> > 
> > I think that scope is too broad. A socket is a 'generic message+FD'
> > interface. Unless there's the expectation that the interface should
> > eventually be as flexible as a regular domain socket, I think it would
> > be a good idea to frame the scope of the interface more precisely.  
> 
> Yes, sure, we need to exactly specify the different kinds of file
> handles / resources. I think it makes sense to have a virtio feature
> flag for each of them, so guest+host can easily negotiate what they are
> able to handle and what not.

I was expecting that to be a feature of the resource producers
(virtio-gpu, virtio-fs, ...) rather than a feature of virtio-ipc
itself. If we go for a model where UUID <-> resource/'struct file'
mappings are created by the subsystems that are in charge of those
resources, it's hard for virtio-ipc to know what kind of resources can
be passed in advance.

Regards,

Boris