Hi On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 9:33 AM Gerd Hoffmann <kra...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 03:19:58PM +0200, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > > Add a new vhost-user message to give a unix socket to a vhost-user > > backend for GPU display updates. > > Can you split input/gpu into two patch series? > > > +Wire format > > +=========== > > + > > +Unless specified differently, numbers are in the machine native byte > > +order. > > + > > +A vhost-user-gpu request consists of 2 header fields and a payload. > > + > > ++---------+------+---------+ > > +| request | size | payload | > > ++---------+------+---------+ > > + > > +Header > > +------ > > + > > +:request: ``u32``, type of the request > > + > > +:size: ``u32``, size of the payload > > + > > +A reply consists only of a payload, whose content depends on the request. > > I'd suggest to use the same format for replies, only with "request" > meaning "status" in replies. Allows for OK/ERROR status in replies, > and having a size field in replies too should make things more robust. > Also allows for an empty reply (status=ok,size=0).
That brings more questions and ambiguity imho. Can we leave that for future protocol extensions negotiated with GET/SET_PROTOCOL_FEATURES ? -- Marc-André Lureau
