On 27.07.2021 10:59, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > Caution: This is an external email. Be cautious while opening links or attachments. > > > > On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 07:31:33PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote: >> This patchset implements support of MSG_EOR bit for SEQPACKET >> AF_VSOCK sockets over virtio transport. >> Idea is to distinguish concepts of 'messages' and 'records'. >> Message is result of sending calls: 'write()', 'send()', 'sendmsg()' >> etc. It has fixed maximum length, and it bounds are visible using >> return from receive calls: 'read()', 'recv()', 'recvmsg()' etc. >> Current implementation based on message definition above. >> Record has unlimited length, it consists of multiple message, >> and bounds of record are visible via MSG_EOR flag returned from >> 'recvmsg()' call. Sender passes MSG_EOR to sending system call and >> receiver will see MSG_EOR when corresponding message will be processed. >> To support MSG_EOR new bit was added along with existing >> 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR': 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM'(end-of-message) - now it >> works in the same way as 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR'. But 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR' >> is used to mark 'MSG_EOR' bit passed from userspace. > At this point it's probably better to rename the old flag, so we stay > compatible. > > What happens if one of the two peers does not support MSG_EOR handling, > while the other does? > > I'll do a closer review in the next few days. Thank You, also i think MSG_EOR support must be described in spec > > Thanks, > Stefano > >
