From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists1p.gnu.org (lists1p.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 844E8CD5BD1 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 2026 20:05:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists1p.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1wU8ss-0002ty-Mi; Mon, 01 Jun 2026 16:05:14 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists1p.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1wU8sm-0002sD-QY for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 01 Jun 2026 16:05:08 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.129.124]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1wU8sk-0005MJ-Kf for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 01 Jun 2026 16:05:08 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1780344304; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=plaHHP/owetcd3quHl6OhFcQ/AAirdRtHSTz6XMkIes=; b=OuUb3hvcVjYa0eYLnxmi+eLwQl3Fv3i+LgPHrByKr/zhD13a5Pgax6sT9sptk9H/fo1DVC ZRV9xmAtMDcYnz2oyswZw7amfJo7HSem+k96R94JfEM1rRo0JCeqo1biMtzlXUCjGyY2Uy VpJoouHdqfSJAc0oKUqn4s6ZuT9Dye0= Received: from mail-wm1-f72.google.com (mail-wm1-f72.google.com [209.85.128.72]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-221-FqUeqpd6PoGZy_Y0mdeYQg-1; Mon, 01 Jun 2026 16:05:02 -0400 X-MC-Unique: FqUeqpd6PoGZy_Y0mdeYQg-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: FqUeqpd6PoGZy_Y0mdeYQg_1780344302 Received: by mail-wm1-f72.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-490a7aeaddbso13309205e9.1 for ; Mon, 01 Jun 2026 13:05:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=google; t=1780344301; x=1780949101; darn=nongnu.org; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=plaHHP/owetcd3quHl6OhFcQ/AAirdRtHSTz6XMkIes=; b=FvatrkCVapD2xS8aNQlC9M3nB5eSjK0TEOPr5UYPYeJtlFI/FyvqOzh9fAyqskReFp Zi1HDPojuoigNo3eCY8aD7g/2hd48vt/l3w2emsYiKdUgjVhLARQmjHhDVhkk5EZwSL/ ZL4jIhoXDEeb1WBWex0mRxiQrXxTnPfi3n3y+Abfdbsx1MMfgVizanNtjlWSGVxfHDoR dFE3MaZo+W0lEy8bUi3qV+nNGc+IhYYLOd/OW8T8tGhAvTvsluM350APhqRX2WWcteVC 7rrNua3h2T21yEI0VbdfHHDD2NX4wsompxANBj+PsltmYtYI5ZuhoRpdnzEbaMSuONnu 9tXg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1780344301; x=1780949101; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-gg :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=plaHHP/owetcd3quHl6OhFcQ/AAirdRtHSTz6XMkIes=; b=XklEknd0p8hWJiGbXKzj3pI59FVbKKWeFCYwS7LA0vn8UaRdNyeZBnwTVdPWQnQb4w vQUlUDaWAkxRAEgE6CIhMbakLGRKP1Sk7dlEOZZkhA3uCoA41D5YxhcVct8tZXayvESY fYlXdkP3t5MQwtwpB/qXAxzZ6tGVMLAwA2nE7p20FfYt5CK2o1Yr+6ubvWBt+ExxHv43 61mqoII7pTqHkZP22+kLrj3Thkkud/zjxOzL5td/7ApVSBlff5QJfszMb23Ci2widqlf 0ogPYgJyo/RPDSrJnJkxztH0RsR+00QbPDQqqBvBiGJ+dpNQpZrf/h/t06iMxEv0yYT3 w8+g== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AFNElJ/Pj/ypS/HUdd+oCDIZ571OdcDztx3IZbQte0plWzUFLiNo0i5NI5P6oPIsFChfvfOUeFoR2pjjCFyd@nongnu.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxYQR4+AkPK88XplKB2ncY1fm18qqK6dnskep6IlZoWZSmDh4Uw 5+124Ri3jr5ZQZ6bvjKVWJ2uD0OZinFHsguyW9lLt6dGQL/fBzhSW3pWBYeytNcbW3AUFK3tsAw 9ISgYuGhofdQXZLS9OVg5BYj7feM2Nqpz1aY/vGx3837p1VsbuptbEehX X-Gm-Gg: Acq92OHY45CcrQLgNBGnk5fVJWU/zhxjLkEYkquLP0DXE0Uv8dSb9Kto49gVVhCUsvs UY0zHfdb5gnjTS3N004+/6WFupp4KRw0rkLmyVeB40TrCwbEBn0RfpEf8tkpOnfj10XEK6OnfNl MiGID9KvV0pukSeqkBD7GVSu1XBVHR3yLraFsp9jMKVimrR/BXbMS7u3+vWC+nEsBef62s6sAgN kmgdU2k2ffZufrilsrHUyBnySyAAx3ZrJ3VXsXqeZIE7ipkYhcJzctJ6/gvJOQB5nKTAy1mIxG4 9vfg0eEFzLeCfXNHXGa8+hLNciVe/5SjPvVpL7P6HAo6ucVAXQOm/mr6UfScKuITt2ZXW7erdnO bbu2QBxFxllS/Hlb34bPguj5+PbVQRhMf/X4yrjU5fNu2Ua5tgFICgA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:8a09:20b0:490:3cf0:8d81 with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-490b0e9355cmr10784465e9.13.1780344301424; Mon, 01 Jun 2026 13:05:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:8a09:20b0:490:3cf0:8d81 with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-490b0e9355cmr10784075e9.13.1780344300888; Mon, 01 Jun 2026 13:05:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from redhat.com (IGLD-80-230-25-45.inter.net.il. [80.230.25.45]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 5b1f17b1804b1-490b0e19a06sm15089025e9.5.2026.06.01.13.04.58 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 01 Jun 2026 13:05:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2026 16:04:56 -0400 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" To: Stefan Hajnoczi Cc: Albert Esteve , Stefan Hajnoczi , Alex =?iso-8859-1?Q?Benn=E9e?= , qemu-devel , virtio-comment@lists.linux.dev, dev@lists.cloudhypervisor.org, rust-vmm@lists.opendev.org, Stefano Garzarella , Manos Pitsidianakis , Demi Marie Obenour , Alyssa Ross , Mark Burton , Matti Moell , Viresh Kumar , Dorinda Bassey , Sergio Lopez , Vishwanath Seshagiri , Rob Bradford , Zhengyu Zhao , "Jorge E. Moreira" Subject: Re: Where should the vhost-user specification live? Message-ID: <20260601160352-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <874ijtz038.fsf@draig.linaro.org> <20260601083628-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20260601090953-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20260601151815.GC411459@fedora> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20260601151815.GC411459@fedora> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.129.124; envelope-from=mst@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -24 X-Spam_score: -2.5 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.5 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.445, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: qemu development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org On Mon, Jun 01, 2026 at 11:18:15AM -0400, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > On Mon, Jun 01, 2026 at 04:27:46PM +0200, Albert Esteve wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 3:51 PM Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 9:12 AM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 01, 2026 at 03:05:50PM +0200, Albert Esteve wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 2:39 PM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 01, 2026 at 02:32:11PM +0200, Albert Esteve wrote: > > > > > > > But also because, in my opinion, separating > > > > > > > the specification would improve development agility by decoupling > > > > > > > specification development from QEMU's review and release cycles. > > > > > > > > > > > > Generally for QEMU this will be less agility, unless I misunderstand > > > > > > what is proposed) > > > > > > > > > > > > Because presumably there will need to be spec releases then? > > > > > > > > > > > > So > > > > > > new feature -> spec tree -> spec release -> qemu implementation -> qemu release > > > > > > > > > > > > is surely longer that what we have now. > > > > > > > > > > I see your point. > > > > > > > > > > However, we do not really need to introduce a heavy release management > > > > > layer. We could just operate it as a living document, where the main > > > > > branch is the authoritative source of truth. > > > > > > > > > > For the workflow, development doesn't have to be strictly sequential > > > > > either. A contributor can propose the spec update while working on the > > > > > implementation, much like we do for VirtIO updates. Actually, this way > > > > > one update/change supports the other. > > > > > > > > > > I guess my point is that a dedicated repository could lower the > > > > > barrier for new changes AND keep QEMU's own development speed mostly > > > > > unaffected. > > > > > > > > > > BR, > > > > > Albert > > > > > > > > Something something submodule? Possibly. If you want to make progress > > > > on this, pls think of the process, try it out. > > > > > > If I understand correctly, the motivation for moving the spec > > > somewhere else is to replace the email patch review process with a git > > > forge review process? > > > > > > This seems like a superficial change and is not worth in my opinion if > > > you consider we'll have to redirect from the old spec location and > > > move the community over to the new repo. > > > > The core issue from my perspective is project neutrality and > > decoupling lifecycles. > > > > Currently, protocol updates are tied to QEMU's tree rules and release > > freezes for example. Since these changes also affect other projects > > (like rust-vmm, crosvm, DPDK, etc.), separating them may make sense > > and could streamline the process. > > I don't see a reason to block vhost-user.rst changes during QEMU's > freeze. If Michael sent a vhost-user spec pull request during freeze I > would merge it. > > > >We could actually lose spec > > > change reviewers in the process either because they don't know what's > > > going on or decide that they prefer to spend time elsewhere when faced > > > with switching processes (the people who review and participate in > > > discussion do so out of personal interest and as far as I'm aware no > > > one is employed to work on vhost-user as their #1 priority). > > > > This is a fair concern. I hope we maintain reviewer engagement. But it > > could also be argued that contributors from other communities may be > > more comfortable with a dedicated project-neutral home. It could well > > go both ways, but it also represents an opportunity to grow. > > > > > > > > Having said that, here is what I imagine it would involve: > > > > > > 1. Michael creates a new repo on a git forge (if he wants it to be > > > under the GitLab qemu-project organization I can help with creating > > > the repo, otherwise he creates a new organization and repo). > > > 2. Discussion happens in Issues. > > > 3. Spec changes are proposed in Merge Requests. Michael merges them > > > once consensus has been reached. > > > > Mostly yes, though we wouldn't necessarily need Michael as the sole > > gatekeeper. We could invite co-maintainers from other key projects to > > share the reviewer load. > > > > Also I'd want to clarify that although I am advocating for this > > change, I do not claim to have the definitive roadmap. I am just > > sharing my view on why this could be a positive evolution. Consensus > > may end up being to remain with the current status quo, or any of the > > other options proposed by Alex. > > I get a sense that this is about politics in the end. Do people feel > they are not represented and would like to have more influence in the > vhost-user spec? > > You bring up project neutrality and a model where Michael is no longer > the sole maintainer. It will be necessary to propose a concrete roadmap > and also to explain the concerns about neutrality more so it's clear > they won't be an issue anymore in the future system. > > Why is the current system not neutral and how will the new system solve > that? > > Who should be a co-maintainer? > > Stefan And also, qemu currently acts like a reference implementation. Which is something. -- MST