On 04/14/2017 05:03 PM, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
Hi
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 5:53 PM Maxime Coquelin
<maxime.coque...@redhat.com <mailto: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>
<mailto: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>
> <mailto: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.
--
When would you get the implementation patch ready? Thanks.
Best,
Wei
