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 5934AC83F14 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2023 09:33:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qbHZG-0006TY-Tl; Wed, 30 Aug 2023 05:32:54 -0400 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 1qbHZF-0006Sd-FV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 30 Aug 2023 05:32:53 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qbHZD-0008NG-7b for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 30 Aug 2023 05:32:53 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1693387970; 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=42m0K1Psw3EyMR86A6Ga3oCxl4vSyD9VE1p4LBtZlQQ=; b=ENDFT+0JpmuaVD+SBsccXbc1YLMgnC6QhzdV0b3a45mnKf8Fp4V2V5k45g4wRGy+409TKM 91S/ajO3bZB3v9DvLiSAKaHb6tJT49FpsoLSB6uUpUiJFCDO8Js/JlV97GJRa+vUkdmAHr Q/fbkUnVaVKSUSuRF4FJVgWqtqB/hZM= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (66.187.233.73 [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-644-AJmeTJhtOQuBvmmf3YMk1g-1; Wed, 30 Aug 2023 05:32:48 -0400 X-MC-Unique: AJmeTJhtOQuBvmmf3YMk1g-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3DCF83811F3C; Wed, 30 Aug 2023 09:32:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.39.192.65] (unknown [10.39.192.65]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDD4A2026D35; Wed, 30 Aug 2023 09:32:46 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 11:32:45 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] vhost-user: call VHOST_USER_SET_VRING_ENABLE synchronously Content-Language: en-US To: Stefano Garzarella Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Eugenio Perez Martin , German Maglione , Liu Jiang , Sergio Lopez Pascual References: <20230827182937.146450-1-lersek@redhat.com> <3hc3j6klx6f3wveap72mebb26iratugg5z64ol3xikt3zigiyh@fd5yilpjuq44> From: Laszlo Ersek In-Reply-To: <3hc3j6klx6f3wveap72mebb26iratugg5z64ol3xikt3zigiyh@fd5yilpjuq44> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.4 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.133.124; envelope-from=lersek@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.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, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, 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_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=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 8/30/23 10:48, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > On Sun, Aug 27, 2023 at 08:29:30PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >> The last patch in the series states and fixes the problem; prior patches >> only refactor the code. > > Thanks for the fix and great cleanup! > > I fully reviewed the series and LGTM. > > An additional step that we can take (not in this series) crossed my > mind, though. In some places we repeat the following pattern: > >     vhost_user_write(dev, &msg, NULL, 0); >     ... > >     if (reply_supported) { >         return process_message_reply(dev, &msg); >     } > > So what about extending the vhost_user_write_msg() added in this series > to support also this cases and remove some code. > Or maybe integrate vhost_user_write_msg() in vhost_user_write(). Good idea, I'd just like someone else to do it -- and as you say, after this series :) This series is relatively packed with "thought" already (in the last patch), plus a week ago I knew absolutely nothing about vhost / vhost-user. (And, I read the whole blog series at in 1-2 days, while analyzing this issue, to understand the design of vhost.) So I'd prefer keeping my first contribution in this area limited -- what you are suggesting touches on some of the requests that require genuine responses, and I didn't want to fiddle with those. (I think your patch should be fine BTW!) Laszlo