Hi On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 5:53 PM Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coque...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi Marc-André, > > On 04/11/2017 03:06 PM, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > > Hi > > > > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:10 PM Maxime Coquelin > > <maxime.coque...@redhat.com <mailto:maxime.coque...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > > > This vhost-user specification update aims at enabling the > > slave to send requests to the master using a dedicated socket > > created by the master. > > > > It can be used for example when the slave implements a device > > IOTLB to send cache miss requests to the master. > > > > The message types list is updated with an "Initiator" field to > > indicate for each type whether the master and/or slave can > > initiate the request. > > > > Signed-off-by: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coque...@redhat.com > > <mailto:maxime.coque...@redhat.com>> > > > > > > This is very similar to a patch I proposed for shutdown slave initiated > > requests: > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2016-04/msg00095.html > > Indeed, thanks for pointing this out, I wasn't aware of your series. > > I find your proposal of having dedicated messages types > (VHOST_USER_SLAVE_*) cleaner. > > ok > Are you ok if I handover your patch, and replace > VHOST_USER_SET_SLAVE_FD to VHOST_USER_SET_SLAVE_REQ_FD? > They are very similar, I suggest you update your patch with the best of both. I suppose you came to the same conclusion with me that trying to make the communication both ways on the same fd would be quite difficult, although it's a bit strange that the qemu implementation forces the design of the protocol in some direction. -- Marc-André Lureau
