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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-18.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B6EEC2B9F4 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 15:21:38 +0000 (UTC) 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 mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF3CA61075 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 15:21:37 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org EF3CA61075 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linaro.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:55360 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lttpo-0001ep-Ss for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 11:21:36 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:35266) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lttoU-00008U-Gp for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 11:20:14 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-x431.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::431]:43960) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lttoQ-0005p0-Vf for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 11:20:14 -0400 Received: by mail-wr1-x431.google.com with SMTP id r9so7217809wrz.10 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 08:20:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=references:user-agent:from:to:cc:subject:date:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=4IvQwMymFSYXNN4J8g9bqYhsm1vjmIRJ0XQ9vu8v/nA=; b=wvRIYq+2PCf8oSP4Xas9YSKXqHAT7NO0Hd7WhwHfUU8AJLvTMJjyCLK252PwyIC6pr 2vzh5TBC8tmNbQYWR67Xt4l4lfkUDFVa7nASVdiMjRmh9rp9wlpqIjp0etpcsRNt+p6Y mqh/XHr8FlkMP43dPizd/Mu92ieKqVW+ktu31KaLviXxmwvdezpDQcvDfjmc9z3WCpTe +oBNVhmwyBNgkqn7pjnVb/b8pYwHgs5SlG17HjBOAbeMgZjakWHCOrsmXh+hgay/1OWn T0B0pcOhkAm8cQ9W/ibUkBd5ssAWT8TpnhIMEyJTw2QyttTfbyqR7jJUOcfmc9U5MOhH t/Yw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:references:user-agent:from:to:cc:subject:date :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=4IvQwMymFSYXNN4J8g9bqYhsm1vjmIRJ0XQ9vu8v/nA=; b=N7ZSBqU6rcTOSJqbIZnQ/nH9jzPgQIoSW8F9akEXyIhOWTHgg3YBL25t1nMIsaddmj +eyy45+D9v70es9H+2ROQYROypIXZorfBSQZ1OF9y+1NLc3rinEUN4sPgrZtuJLnU7UB NRUJi6Ynk8vvRyZGI6esVS5dLXCa5uiUACy0PLVt4LzP+r/TgEpeEXGd3TJFdqzth4sJ CEaYKK0/E/AnImkwMurTZoc1kcLB+Lmvm2A99dNWq38tMSc1AnW0BTWq2wumlurS23uU gVzlLSmnuFcNifE2jqY/HRGsM3NPYjr+TMhL8gyQprEeqHyzqoLhEPiuoGb7+1br/tXH ma0Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531/D/m6gcs1y4JgCmOac2aCStTFSXJXqbo66C6uKPyxWpXtvLcG +DuFk16Dxos/KQ6ajMI9cRRiUQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx3d+zWCsBnFl5B/hPhaDVhy2FZQ5KNdAG2nPkrxHvqUYxn1OVJTF2sVMIcvV5eflKTSDrl2g== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6849:: with SMTP id o9mr6270080wrw.44.1623943209287; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 08:20:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zen.linaroharston ([51.148.130.216]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w8sm5352956wmi.45.2021.06.17.08.20.08 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 17 Jun 2021 08:20:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zen (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zen.linaroharston (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5F871FF7E; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 16:20:07 +0100 (BST) References: <20210325144846.17520-1-hi@alyssa.is> <87sg4a1dzl.fsf@linaro.org> User-agent: mu4e 1.5.13; emacs 28.0.50 From: Alex =?utf-8?Q?Benn=C3=A9e?= To: Alyssa Ross Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] docs: clarify absence of set_features in vhost-user Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 16:19:26 +0100 In-reply-to: <87sg4a1dzl.fsf@linaro.org> Message-ID: <87y2b8ecwo.fsf@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::431; envelope-from=alex.bennee@linaro.org; helo=mail-wr1-x431.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Stefan Hajnoczi , "Michael S . Tsirkin" Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" Alex Benn=C3=A9e writes: > Alyssa Ross writes: > >> The previous wording was (at least to me) ambiguous about whether a >> backend should enable features immediately after they were set using >> VHOST_USER_SET_PROTOCOL_FEATURES, or wait for support for protocol >> features to be acknowledged if it hasn't been yet before enabling >> those features. >> >> This patch attempts to make it clearer that >> VHOST_USER_SET_PROTOCOL_FEATURES should immediately enable features, >> even if support for protocol features has not yet been acknowledged, >> while still also making clear that the frontend SHOULD acknowledge >> support for protocol features. >> >> Previous discussion begins here: >> > > I totally missed this when I posted a similar attempt at clarification: > > Subject: [PATCH v2] vhost-user.rst: add clarifying language about proto= col negotiation > Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2021 14:50:11 +0000 > Message-Id: <20210303145011.14547-1-alex.bennee@linaro.org> > >> >> Cc: Michael S. Tsirkin >> Signed-off-by: Alyssa Ross >> --- >> docs/interop/vhost-user.rst | 14 +++++++++----- >> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/docs/interop/vhost-user.rst b/docs/interop/vhost-user.rst >> index d6085f7045..c42150331d 100644 >> --- a/docs/interop/vhost-user.rst >> +++ b/docs/interop/vhost-user.rst >> @@ -871,9 +871,9 @@ Master message types >> ``VHOST_USER_GET_FEATURES``. >>=20=20 >> .. Note:: >> - Slave that reported ``VHOST_USER_F_PROTOCOL_FEATURES`` must >> - support this message even before ``VHOST_USER_SET_FEATURES`` was >> - called. >> + While QEMU should acknowledge ``VHOST_USER_F_PROTOCOL_FEATURES``, a >> + backend must allow ``VHOST_USER_GET_PROTOCOL_FEATURES`` even if >> + ``VHOST_USER_F_PROTOCOL_FEATURES`` has not been acknowledged yet. >>=20=20 >> ``VHOST_USER_SET_PROTOCOL_FEATURES`` >> :id: 16 >> @@ -886,8 +886,12 @@ Master message types >> ``VHOST_USER_GET_FEATURES``. >>=20=20 >> .. Note:: >> - Slave that reported ``VHOST_USER_F_PROTOCOL_FEATURES`` must support >> - this message even before ``VHOST_USER_SET_FEATURES`` was called. >> + While QEMU should acknowledge ``VHOST_USER_F_PROTOCOL_FEATURES``, a >> + backend must allow ``VHOST_USER_SET_PROTOCOL_FEATURES`` even if >> + ``VHOST_USER_F_PROTOCOL_FEATURES`` has not been acknowledged yet. >> + The backend must not wait for ``VHOST_USER_SET_FEATURES`` before >> + enabling protocol features requested with >> + ``VHOST_USER_SET_PROTOCOL_FEATURES``. > > I think this is perfectly fine clarification although I think there > might be a patch in flight which changes some of the master slave > terminology so with that resolved: > > Reviewed-by: Alex Benn=C3=A9e > > However there is still the edge case of what happens after the vhost > pair have negotiated protocol features like REPLY_ACK should > VHOST_USER_F_PROTOCOL_FEATURES still be acknowledged by > VHOST_USER_SET_FEATURES. > > Stefan's proposed wording which I incorporated in my patch made it clear > that VHOST_USER_F_PROTOCOL_FEATURES is never exposed to the guest by the > VMM due to it's UNUSED status. I would just like it explicit if it needs > to be preserved between the two sides of the VHOST_USER_*_FEATURES for > the negotiated protocol features to remain valid. > > Perhaps you could incorporate some wording for that? > >>=20=20 >> ``VHOST_USER_SET_OWNER`` >> :id: 3 General ping to the vhost-user spec maintainers. This was also mentioned while merging: https://github.com/rust-vmm/vhost/pull/24 --=20 Alex Benn=C3=A9e