On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 09:10:03PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > 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 Which code is duplicated between virtio vsock and virtio net right now? -- MST
