Re: [PATCH v10 0/3] virtio-vsock: SOCK_SEQPACKET description

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

On Wed, Jan 05, 2022 at 05:35:02PM +0100, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> v9: https://markmail.org/message/4s6kfbeblxw4vzk4
> 
> Linux kernel and QEMU already merged SOCK_SEQPACKET support,
> so I'm resending Arseny's patches to have consistent virtio-spec
> and implementation.
> 
> I added patch 2, following the discussion about F_STREAM feature bit:
> https://markmail.org/message/aoaspjy2jhidwbuo#query:+page:1+mid:obw54zzikgqimhjk+state:results
> 
> About patch 2, the vhost-vsock device in the Linux kernel doesn't set bit 0
> (F_STREAM), so at this point I don't know if it's better to use a negative
> feature flag (e.g. F_NO_STREAM) or we go for F_STREAM and send a patch to
> linux-stable (and QEMU?) to solve this issue.
> 
> Thanks,
> Stefano

I thought a lot about this.  Given things are in the field, I think
fundamentally F_NO_STREAM is a good idea, however I think maybe
we should split it:
VIRTIO_VSOCK_F_NO_IMPLIED_STREAM meaning "stream is not implied"
VIRTIO_VSOCK_F_STREAM meaning "stream is supported"

and then we say everyone SHOULD set VIRTIO_VSOCK_F_NO_IMPLIED_STREAM.

Hmm?

> Arseny Krasnov (2):
>   virtio-vsock: use C style defines for constants
>   virtio-vsock: SOCK_SEQPACKET description
> 
> Stefano Garzarella (1):
>   virtio-vsock: add VIRTIO_VSOCK_F_STREAM feature bit
> 
>  virtio-vsock.tex | 93 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
>  1 file changed, 65 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
> 
> -- 
> 2.31.1