On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 09:45:23AM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 09:04:47AM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
> >
> > On 13.04.2021 22:55, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 05:22:44PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
> > > > On 13.04.2021 16:10, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 03:53:29PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
> > > > > > This adds description of SOCK_SEQPACKET socket type
> > > > > > support for virtio-vsock.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Arseny Krasnov <arseny.krasnov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > virtio-vsock.tex | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++-----
> > > > > > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/virtio-vsock.tex b/virtio-vsock.tex
> > > > > > index ad57f9d..00e59cc 100644
> > > > > > --- a/virtio-vsock.tex
> > > > > > +++ b/virtio-vsock.tex
> > > > > > @@ -16,7 +16,10 @@ \subsection{Virtqueues}\label{sec:Device Types / Socket Device / Virtqueues}
> > > > > >
> > > > > > \subsection{Feature bits}\label{sec:Device Types / Socket Device / Feature bits}
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -There are currently no feature bits defined for this device.
> > > > > > +\begin{description}
> > > > > > +\item VIRTIO_VSOCK_F_SEQPACKET (0) SOCK_SEQPACKET socket type is
> > > > > > + supported.
> > > > > Does it make sense to only support seqpacket and not stream?
> > > > > I am guessing not since seqpacket is more or less
> > > > > a superset ...
> > > > You mean, this sentence must be "Both SOCK_SEQPACKET and SOCK_STREAM types
> > > >
> > > > are supported"?
> > >
> > > No. I am asking whether we want a feature bit for SOCK_STREAM too?
> >
> > I think there is no practical sense in SOCK_STREAM bit, because SOCK_SEQPACKET
> >
> > is stream + message boundaries and potential DGRAM is completely different
> >
> > thing. Of course i can implement it in my patches and also add it to spec patch, but i see only
> >
> > esthetic in this: all three socket types have own feature bits.
> >
>
> I agree that it may make sense to have a bit for SOCK_STREAM. For example we
> may have devices in the future that want to implement only DGRAM for
> simplicity.
>
> I'm just worried about backwards compatibility with current devices where we
> don't have any feature bit.
>
> Should we add a negative feature flag? (e.g. VIRTIO_VSOCK_F_NO_STREAM)
> I don't like it much, but I can't think of anything better.
>
> Thanks,
> Stefano
We can simply specify that if there are no feature bits at all then
stream is assumed supported.
>
> This publicly archived list offers a means to provide input to the
> OASIS Virtual I/O Device (VIRTIO) TC.
>
> In order to verify user consent to the Feedback License terms and
> to minimize spam in the list archive, subscription is required
> before posting.
>
> Subscribe: virtio-comment-subscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe: virtio-comment-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> List help: virtio-comment-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> List archive: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/virtio-comment/
> Feedback License: https://www.oasis-open.org/who/ipr/feedback_license.pdf
> List Guidelines: https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/mailing-lists
> Committee: https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/virtio/
> Join OASIS: https://www.oasis-open.org/join/
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
