On Sat, Mar 05, 2022 at 01:25:44AM +0000, Bobby Eshleman wrote: > On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 02:15:24AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 03:29:31AM +0000, Bobby Eshleman wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 05:09:58PM +0100, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > > > > Hi Bobby, > > > > Sorry for the delay, but I saw these patches today. > > > > Please, can you keep me in CC? > > > > > > > > > > Hey Stefano, sorry about that. I'm not sure how I lost your CC on this > > > one. I'll make sure you are there moving forward. > > > > > > I want to mention that I'm taking a look at > > > https://gitlab.com/vsock/vsock/-/issues/1 in parallel with my dgram work > > > here. After sending out this series we noticed potential overlap between > > > the two issues. The additional dgram queues may become redundant if a > > > fairness mechanism that solves issue #1 above also applies to > > > connection-less protocols (similar to how the TC subsystem works). I've > > > just begun sorting out potential solutions so no hard results yet. Just > > > putting on your radar that the proposal here in v5 may be impacted if my > > > investigation into issue #1 yields something adequate. > > > > > > Well not mergeable, but datagram is upstream in Linux, is it not? > > So we do want it in the spec IMHO, even if in the future there > > will be a better protocol. > > > > As of right now, it is not upstream in Linux. The virtio transport just passes > -EOPNOTSUPP up the stack when the sock invokes it. > > I think what you're thinking of is the vsock dgram in VMWare's vmci and > Hyper-V. They support dgrams, but are not compatible with virtio (e.g., don't > use virtqueues). > > -Bobby Oh no, I was thinking about SEQPACKET actually. Which has the same issue I noted on another thread with memory accounting as datagram by the way. -- MST _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
