On 02/18/2014 05:06 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 11:58:11AM -0500, Vlad Yasevich wrote: >> On 02/17/2014 11:56 AM, Eric Blake wrote: >>> On 02/17/2014 09:52 AM, Eric Blake wrote: >>>> On 02/16/2014 07:27 PM, Amos Kong wrote: >>>>> Stefan Fritsch just fixed a virtio-net driver bug [1], virtio-net won't >>>>> filter out VLAN-tagged packets if VIRTIO_NET_F_CTRL_VLAN isn't negotiated. >>>>> >>>>> We should also not send the vlan table to management, this patch makes >>>>> the vlan-talbe optional. >>>> >>>> s/talbe/table/ >>>> >>> >>>>> @@ -4053,7 +4053,7 @@ >>>>> 'multicast-overflow': 'bool', >>>>> 'unicast-overflow': 'bool', >>>>> 'main-mac': 'str', >>>>> - 'vlan-table': ['int'], >>>>> + '*vlan-table': ['int'], >>>> >>>> Indentation is now off. >>>> >>>>> - "main-mac": main macaddr string (json-string) >>>>> -- "vlan-table": a json-array of active vlan id >>>>> +- "vlan-table": a json-array of active vlan id (optoinal) >>>> >>>> s/optoinal/optional/ >>>> >>>> Those fixes are trivial enough, so I'm okay if you correct them then add: >>> >>> Scratch that. I revoke my R-b, on the following grounds: >>> >>> On 02/17/2014 08:27 AM, Vlad Yasevich wrote: >>>> On 02/16/2014 09:27 PM, Amos Kong wrote: >>>>> Stefan Fritsch just fixed a virtio-net driver bug [1], virtio-net won't >>>>> filter out VLAN-tagged packets if VIRTIO_NET_F_CTRL_VLAN isn't >>> negotiated. >>>>> >>>>> We should also not send the vlan table to management, this patch makes >>>>> the vlan-talbe optional. >>>> ^^^^^^^^^^ >>>> table. >>>> >>>> One question I have from the API perspective is can we suddenly change >>>> something to be optional? If there are any users of this , >>>> wouldn't they have to change now to check the existence of this >>>> list? >>> >>> You are correct. Since the parameter is an output field, older clients >>> may be depending on it existing. It is okay to generate an empty array, >>> but you must not entirely omit the array unless you add further >>> justification in your commit message that you are 100% positive that >>> there are no clients of 1.6 that will be broken when the array no longer >>> appears in the output. >>> >>> Can you rework the patch to just leave the array empty in the case where >>> the bit does not indicate it is used? Or do we need to add a new bool >>> field to the output for new enough management to know whether to use the >>> array? >>> >> >> I think a completely empty array should be sufficient. >> >> -vlad > > An empty array could mean either no vlans allowed or > all vlans allowed. Also it's nice if users can detect an old > buggy qemu. > > Let's just add an rx state. >
Fine with me. -vlad
