On 11.06.2021 17:57, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 05:39:01PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote: >> On 11.06.2021 15:25, Stefano Garzarella wrote: >>> Hi Arseny, >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 02:17:00PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote: >>>> On 11.06.2021 14:07, Arseny Krasnov wrote: >>>>> This patchset implements support of SOCK_SEQPACKET for virtio >>>>> transport. >>>>> As SOCK_SEQPACKET guarantees to save record boundaries, so to >>>>> do it, new bit for field 'flags' was added: SEQ_EOR. This bit is >>>>> set to 1 in last RW packet of message. >>>>> Now as packets of one socket are not reordered neither on vsock >>>>> nor on vhost transport layers, such bit allows to restore original >>>>> message on receiver's side. If user's buffer is smaller than message >>>>> length, when all out of size data is dropped. >>>>> Maximum length of datagram is limited by 'peer_buf_alloc' value. >>>>> Implementation also supports 'MSG_TRUNC' flags. >>>>> Tests also implemented. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks to stsp2@xxxxxxxxx for encouragements and initial design >>>>> recommendations. >>>>> >>>>> Arseny Krasnov (18): >>>>> af_vsock: update functions for connectible socket >>>>> af_vsock: separate wait data loop >>>>> af_vsock: separate receive data loop >>>>> af_vsock: implement SEQPACKET receive loop >>>>> af_vsock: implement send logic for SEQPACKET >>>>> af_vsock: rest of SEQPACKET support >>>>> af_vsock: update comments for stream sockets >>>>> virtio/vsock: set packet's type in virtio_transport_send_pkt_info() >>>>> virtio/vsock: simplify credit update function API >>>>> virtio/vsock: defines and constants for SEQPACKET >>>>> virtio/vsock: dequeue callback for SOCK_SEQPACKET >>>>> virtio/vsock: add SEQPACKET receive logic >>>>> virtio/vsock: rest of SOCK_SEQPACKET support >>>>> virtio/vsock: enable SEQPACKET for transport >>>>> vhost/vsock: enable SEQPACKET for transport >>>>> vsock/loopback: enable SEQPACKET for transport >>>>> vsock_test: add SOCK_SEQPACKET tests >>>>> virtio/vsock: update trace event for SEQPACKET >>>>> >>>>> drivers/vhost/vsock.c | 56 ++- >>>>> include/linux/virtio_vsock.h | 10 + >>>>> include/net/af_vsock.h | 8 + >>>>> .../trace/events/vsock_virtio_transport_common.h | 5 +- >>>>> include/uapi/linux/virtio_vsock.h | 9 + >>>>> net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c | 464 ++++++++++++------ >>>>> net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c | 26 ++ >>>>> net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c | 179 +++++++- >>>>> net/vmw_vsock/vsock_loopback.c | 12 + >>>>> tools/testing/vsock/util.c | 32 +- >>>>> tools/testing/vsock/util.h | 3 + >>>>> tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c | 116 ++++++ >>>>> 12 files changed, 730 insertions(+), 190 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> v10 -> v11: >>>>> General changelog: >>>>> - now data is copied to user's buffer only when >>>>> whole message is received. >>>>> - reader is woken up when EOR packet is received. >>>>> - if read syscall was interrupted by signal or >>>>> timeout, error is returned(not 0). >>>>> >>>>> Per patch changelog: >>>>> see every patch after '---' line. >>>> So here is new version for review with updates discussed earlier :) >>> Thanks, I'll review next week, but I suggest you again to split in two >>> series, since patchwork (and netdev maintainers) are not happy with a >>> series of 18 patches. >>> >>> If you still prefer to keep them together during development, then >>> please use the RFC tag. >>> >>> Also did you take a look at the FAQ for netdev that I linked last >>> time? >>> I don't see the net-next tag... >> I didn't use next tag because two patches from first seven(which was >> >> considered to be sent to netdev) - 0004 and 0006 >> >> were changed in this patchset(because of last ideas about queueing >> >> whole message). So i removed R-b line and now there is no sense to >> >> use net-next tag for first patches. When it will be R-b - i'll send it > Okay, in that case better to use RFC tag. Ack, for big patchset for LKML i'll RFC tag > >> to >> >> netdev with such tag and we can continue discussing second part >> >> of patches(virtio specific). > Don't worry for now. You can do it for the next round, but I think all > the patches will go through netdev and would be better to split in 2 > series, both of them with net-next tag. Of course, for netdev this patchset will be splitted for two series Thank You > > Thanks, > Stefano > >
