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 lists.gnu.org (lists.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 5D7F8C021B2 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2025 20:47:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tlDQp-0008TD-V8; Thu, 20 Feb 2025 15:46:03 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tlDQo-0008SZ-74 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 20 Feb 2025 15:46:02 -0500 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 1tlDQm-0005xV-6q for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 20 Feb 2025 15:46:01 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1740084358; 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: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=hzzZ5ww6n8noddmUx/YahapgVYOjnRL84qT3+4Wfjhs=; b=MZRCT8lHesncmepa6MdhOd4LOr7Arik4JVonDJcYzMrcUq0/chKbBLETHGTp56Rm7dLWAM FIlyzF30nsJZDFhRoMHOKeD16aGAQefntwYr1Rf+XEJ4stwgtdzCUVGrHeKI3VPHPKhI+Z i58j6OyF0I+uTCGhmE7WMS653X+RDvA= Received: from mail-ej1-f69.google.com (mail-ej1-f69.google.com [209.85.218.69]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-359-CdcibevYM7S9J20M9x_iew-1; Thu, 20 Feb 2025 15:45:56 -0500 X-MC-Unique: CdcibevYM7S9J20M9x_iew-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: CdcibevYM7S9J20M9x_iew_1740084356 Received: by mail-ej1-f69.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-abb8f65af3dso131493566b.1 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:45:56 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1740084355; x=1740689155; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=hzzZ5ww6n8noddmUx/YahapgVYOjnRL84qT3+4Wfjhs=; b=P4kdw1myQXIhlHxw3LgGNiDn8RGJSRvMwWnpPUr+ZAj/C5ZDwqo726pKZqqc+ql5mP rKKv6POeibn7opnExAsC0pDs7pCspR6ms+LN00bgu6eX9z9gq1fvOK+WGzP0QIBhUb27 z6UFngHuhqlT7ZK3F+48+w96R11sC3nT2P4DS9XVnIHmoQStTtouDPi2zkX8ESSD2yAa uCP2kRBOdlS7xP9/OrUSvuWhcaqA3r3JjqKncW0dRUX3bskX9tOt5v/uir26El1rf0ps znsdC1kYZGBWMTP46wW91X1sT/vp7FzKB06v0vpJSCHaApJp7lfs9HZ/ctIEmCtdFDrw Be5w== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCU55ok7UDU41XrLusAXhkxrJbrgeyic7HcqVQZly1Zb3TymqhbgECAip2cPrjeFDg/Gfbrw64MgQ/WM@nongnu.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yy6EQs/hP2U/ZPU0u/cJbdLB8e86YIV7se6XENYZ4ebItEvTFDK My+1xVjQasw9smrSFxBt3KxWF227ZYMsjEOwLwQTw+ZxNfUaw/1gd2jsUDxOOkA9PIjUecy/kD/ BTAvWV021p+9vQXNa2ptFTe2yytGiMj96E7tz6SL9hPyDormd/vXI X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncsWcr6gQ/qaJYjkerOuR730H8P58w8zGOr1BuCDcCJ5gfoLdp4g5xHkb4lApY0 0Lb64NAMw+spgVUsbpsq5qhy4kQ6jNRo+amCwyuIu/zgs7Q9IqWLjq4rF4LqwFo9UFFiPBWdv47 0ng31fU6H0XmS+x6nCUfiiT0506CMELGsACiyvrDxhfZNB4e6bfLIAMab9bXK1GmU5+y151wLEM vBl0Zg+TwRMqiXjuGqwC25ayHI37WdHxri7RXEM0xbhPbrN1+wrclrZ5y9VnLSP6oDslA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:6a14:b0:abb:b36e:5350 with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-abc09c2654emr79135966b.44.1740084355449; Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:45:55 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEks6qLmt4WO+P6CqcBzV5MsioVe0OemrL7GT3UeruCAb4JtJkW7w7ghNkO/PimCCUNw16SoA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:6a14:b0:abb:b36e:5350 with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-abc09c2654emr79133166b.44.1740084354641; Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:45:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from redhat.com ([2.55.163.174]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a640c23a62f3a-abb6e4df5basm1150590566b.152.2025.02.20.12.45.52 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:45:53 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 15:45:50 -0500 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" To: Stefano Brivio Cc: Stefano Garzarella , Laurent Vivier , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Jason Wang , Thibaut Collet Subject: Re: [PATCH] vhost-user: Silence unsupported VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_RARP error Message-ID: <20250220154353-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <3mcx7u456pawkgz4dgf6tvk7izczuy55guipqacqkl66jhtltq@fofd5u3el4nj> <20250122085828-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <044af96f-791b-471f-ae90-c17597445fd3@redhat.com> <20250124170327.448805ad@elisabeth> <20250220102724-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20250220175910.25688823@elisabeth> <20250220131932-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20250220210004.1501dd86@elisabeth> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250220210004.1501dd86@elisabeth> 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: -25 X-Spam_score: -2.6 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.6 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.457, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=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: 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 Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 09:00:04PM +0100, Stefano Brivio wrote: > On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 13:21:33 -0500 > "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 05:59:10PM +0100, Stefano Brivio wrote: > > > On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 10:28:20 -0500 > > > "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 05:03:27PM +0100, Stefano Brivio wrote: > > > > > But I don't understand why we're leaving this as it is. > > > > > > > > So that people notice if there's some backend problem and > > > > announcements are not going out. should help debug migration > > > > issues. which we had, so we added this :) > > > > > > The message mentions that the back-end fails to do something it didn't > > > and can't even do, that's (one reason) why it's wrong (and confusing) > > > and this patch is obviously correct. > > > > > > Perhaps the commit title isn't entirely accurate (it should say "when > > > unsupported", I guess) but it's somewhat expected to sacrifice detail > > > in the name of brevity, there. A glimpse at the message is enough. > > > > > > Laurent now added a workaround in passt to pretend that we support > > > VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_RARP by doing nothing in the callback, report > > > success, and silence the warning: > > > > > > https://passt.top/passt/commit/?id=dd6a6854c73a09c4091c1776ee7f349d1e1f966c > > > > > > but having to do this kind of stuff is a bit unexpected while > > > interacting with another opensource project. > > > > > > -- > > > Stefano > > > > > > let me explain. historically backends did not support migration. > > then migration was added. as it was assumed RARP is required, > > we did not add a feature flag for "supports migration" and > > instead just assumed that VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_RARP is that. > > > > If you silence the warning you silence it for old backends > > with no migration support. > > Thanks for the explanation. I'm struggling to grasp this. So if a > back-end doesn't support migration, because VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_RARP > is not present in the features flag, migration is done anyway, but then > this is printed: > > Vhost user backend fails to broadcast fake RARP > > with the meaning of: > > We did migration even if the back-end doesn't support it, whoops > > ? > > Note that the message is printed *after* the migration and the flag is > *not* checked before. > > > If you want a new flag "migration with no RARP", be my > > guest and add it. > > That would actually make more sense than the existing situation I > think. VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_NO_RARP? > > I didn't understand, yet, what the exact meaning would be, though. > > > Or if you want to add documentation explaining the meaning > > better and clarifying the message. > > I'm still in the phase where I'm trying to understand the role of the > message :) ...I have to say this is fairly different now from what was > mentioned on the thread so far. I'm going by memory. We made it a warning on the assumption that hey, maybe someone has a way to migrate without a RARP, let them work. Exactly what happened, we just did not think it through completely :) -- MST