From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yuanhan Liu Subject: Re: [PATCH] vhost: Introduce vhost-user's REPLY_ACK feature Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 18:03:06 +0800 Message-ID: <20161213100306.GD18991@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> References: <20161212175400.7978-1-maxime.coquelin@redhat.com> <20161213095602.GC18991@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: dev@dpdk.org To: Maxime Coquelin Return-path: Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFA402C8 for ; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 11:01:17 +0100 (CET) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 10:57:10AM +0100, Maxime Coquelin wrote: > > > On 12/13/2016 10:56 AM, Yuanhan Liu wrote: > >On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 06:54:00PM +0100, Maxime Coquelin wrote: > >>REPLY_ACK features provide a generic way for QEMU to ensure both > >>completion and success of a request. > >> > >>As described in vhost-user spec in QEMU repository, QEMU sets > >>VHOST_USER_NEED_REPLY flag (bit 3) when expecting a reply_ack from > >>the backend. Backend must reply with 0 for success or non-zero > >>otherwise when flag is set. > >> > >>Currently, only VHOST_USER_SET_MEM_TABLE request implements reply_ack, > >>in order to synchronize mapping updates. > >> > >>This patch enables REPLY_ACK feature generally, but only checks error > >>code for VHOST_USER_SET_MEM_TABLE. > >> > >>Signed-off-by: Maxime Coquelin > > > >Thanks for the patch: it looks good and straightforward to me. > Good! > > > > >>--- > >>Hi, > >> > >>The intend of this patch is not to fix a known issue, but it is > >>nice to have this feature, and it will be used by upcoming MTU > >>feature if it remains in its current form. > > > >Just asking, when do you plan to send out the patches? > As soon as QEMU part is accepted, because changes in QEMU series > may impact DPDK's one. But maybe you could send them out earlier, so that we could have understand it better? --yliu