[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [virtio-comment] Re: [RFC 1/2] spec/vhost-user: Introdu

From: Wei Wang
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [virtio-comment] Re: [RFC 1/2] spec/vhost-user: Introduce secondary channel for slave initiated requests
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 16:05:17 +0800
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0

On 04/14/2017 05:03 PM, Marc-André Lureau wrote:

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 5:53 PM Maxime Coquelin <address@hidden <mailto:address@hidden>> 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
    > <address@hidden <mailto:address@hidden>
    <mailto:address@hidden>>> 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 <address@hidden
    >     <mailto:address@hidden
    > 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.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]