On 27.07.2021 12:58, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > Caution: This is an external email. Be cautious while opening links or attachments. > > > > On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 12:34:36PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote: >> 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 > Yep, sure! > > What do you think about the concerns above? I think you are right, i'll rename EOR -> EOM, and EOR will be added by patch > > Stefano > >
