On 2018/11/30 下午8:55, Jason Wang wrote:
On 2018/11/30 下午8:52, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
If you want to compare it with
something that would be TCP or QUIC. The fundamental difference
between
virtio-vsock and e.g. TCP is that TCP operates in a packet loss
environment.
So they are using timers for reliability, and receiver is always
free to
discard any unacked data.
Virtio-net knows nothing above L2, so they are totally transparent
to device
itself. I still don't get why not using virtio-net instead.
Thanks
Is your question why is virtio-vsock used instead of TCP on top of IP
on top of virtio-net?
No, my question is why not do vsock through virtio-net.
Thanks
Just to clarify, it's not about vosck over ethernet, and it's not about
inventing new features or APIs. It's probably something like:
- Let virtio-net driver probe vsock device and do vosck specific things
if needed to share as much codes.
- A new kind of sockfd (which is vsock based) for vhost-net for it to do
vsock specific things (hopefully it can be transparent).
The change should be totally transparent to userspace applications.
Thanks
