Re: [PATCH v11 0/3] virtio-vsock: SOCK_SEQPACKET description

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 03:06:54PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13 2022, Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 12:34:20PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> >>> Otherwise maybe we should write in the spec that if F_SEQPACKET is set
> >>> this means that stream is supported even if F_STREAM is not set.
> >>
> >>Yes, if that works, it would probably be the less ugly option.
> >
> > Okay, let's go for F_STREAM (even Michael's comment seems to agree with 
> > that).
> >
> > Do you think we need to write this implication into the specification, 
> > or do we leave it to the implementation to solve this transient problem?
> 
> I would add something like "if F_SEQPACKET has been negotiated, the
> [device|driver] MUST act as if F_STREAM has also been negotiated".

I don't think it's necessary really. A couple of months of drivers
do not constitute a legacy that we have to maintain for ever if
the failure mode is graceful enough.
Certainly not for the driver,
and even for device I'd make it MAY, i.e. device can allow
a driver to create stream sockets without negotiating properly.

-- 
MST