From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 871D43BED4A for ; Mon, 1 Jun 2026 14:38:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1780324686; cv=none; b=XTYdtrhU8O3tU9D3QXXJzgN+tu1ahlfKbt371Wuqt0SNsB5YOwY24uFBkK6uDSwHxmF7Sn2V3xCnEg86cK1R2W1OZc+NTBfs1srMFg0k63xRy/yp6AbeTWoVIilw8/7WC2TEbYnLXISlWyhFIECqx90qsL/SLCybY1TAbI7Rd0c= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1780324686; c=relaxed/simple; bh=xu65VNuaDzycmkA3v+iEREeaBsMKdgXawOdt9GjJ2y0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Disposition; b=UMjJTC3VKKE7S7v4rOTh4V6Ihbw9jGnMqA5a3ksxJmEUPv8cVe573OF3aQOkJf9xNECENrB//sn/FN2l4LLrBSJhDxlyXF1ulz0CpcyOGPb6zka0Gwlz68m8CVgklQCknrgDpqq0CdfmctqX8K/f/s5riT/PaXqfuqfTwFl9jUk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=c1FRIdE8; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="c1FRIdE8" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1780324684; 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=zgfJn6jgdDZ5kywXtUqLLHdwAjzX+oqe3dGLFNRDz44=; b=c1FRIdE8dec4hTSCAxEeCBwMsITFqso5ddGpyLGoQTZSnuz+sABlDVqAILXzAtcnF6+WrU 3Av7vKPU96RIz+LekzZDfe9243aKaArYT5pq4lin/SvPAKEX+dLaKzAvdWGsx7IOGb6yF8 MAObucV+asvxji9LZjmO9L0mmrRfgmQ= Received: from mail-wm1-f71.google.com (mail-wm1-f71.google.com [209.85.128.71]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-461-CQ1ZaF9zMAKksIfopiM_Ug-1; Mon, 01 Jun 2026 10:38:03 -0400 X-MC-Unique: CQ1ZaF9zMAKksIfopiM_Ug-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: CQ1ZaF9zMAKksIfopiM_Ug_1780324682 Received: by mail-wm1-f71.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-490a7aeaddbso11273545e9.1 for ; Mon, 01 Jun 2026 07:38:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1780324682; x=1780929482; 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=zgfJn6jgdDZ5kywXtUqLLHdwAjzX+oqe3dGLFNRDz44=; b=O8aBODwqBE2XFSTuNCkU0UMTKHKRcA2EDg1i1VpwgOAvYU3NHPohK0sPG/G/dGXISJ o4J3KlTn+iNXmfl/Exvxgjp574oU4NZV4uqIwabj/AkRoB+0qaffRlUGpLmmbt6ecrXA iB1q/n9xA79JsGizStctO7mVlpFaplB110URFwQIdUr2I82Us58XZVOhePt1v/3cGDr/ RWzmpllsrVCcDju42+WK3EW2TECtjeOFcb5EJamaUBn4C5eGO3VIoJubvytYvDG+6eoU lQvg6ycjvVwCCiftd+MVzsDRzR/zaHJt5LmUNy+2YKjLNtOVVb7TwyHfoIo2eKK6wFFK EkCQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AFNElJ+3ClpwrdBViOpHtOS5k2NR5yCcVcUicGuo8vP1ZK+2aMGBKk1rZBDCxHKYFK1++Ui9rdH0wZ5GWyMp2wbhIw==@lists.linux.dev X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzrekhDHZ1CUlacfm8RFddr1/zvYfvJjjQ8BQMBLdQbwbD84T8x Np3tODnhZx9qpLj82GoHMyz2IKP/BPcqDYbrq3QVMS1aPuVuC5S+qdZBis93VTV3C4Kiih1TBoS Zl8IdxMZQJocR5w1WVZRMm8Zc8YzlTpZpqbk1GnC2xW+xtuIGEeX2WjorKtCSPR/gAYdl X-Gm-Gg: Acq92OHfAkCEvBFRZS4K0Wyxp4ILyQgugQ2ESKuaNMgsbylmLbEcAixgg8d8GJM2k2m FERleZu+VFX8bAqZnkLZtpt1yF+28DKl4QK2VpPR2iSgUEZwFfflVxJihnP8kzg4g+yXTcBELRn yaXBDnHNzEv242s8+gx/D5zEX+sO60OHouS47OMA77I/gpABhrW1eA148i8K6fGjB7wAkDgyNum ndl2b998A0IJfLI2XaLXtOFbyI+mGgtPq7MCxsnbRapv+weGhJlg4hdr20b7tYyuovB/svQPaQ9 pAWOiK4IuJ3STBsXy9xchNiKZW04CA+t5pJtwzLP6xKApIE/OWtEle8wWshm+S5WlERR4bDpzBp 6k7mtvc4Fyt70hMN3oaNi0pcvFmAiUx9+jWvonhP1diDIV+SRpOqTAQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:314e:b0:48f:e230:29f4 with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-490a2a78973mr166523475e9.15.1780324681736; Mon, 01 Jun 2026 07:38:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:314e:b0:48f:e230:29f4 with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-490a2a78973mr166523055e9.15.1780324681159; Mon, 01 Jun 2026 07:38:01 -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 5b1f17b1804b1-490b0467957sm5583625e9.13.2026.06.01.07.37.58 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 01 Jun 2026 07:38:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2026 10:37:57 -0400 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" To: Albert Esteve Cc: 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 , Stefan Hajnoczi , 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: <20260601103715-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> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: virtio-comment@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-MFC-PROC-ID: 4iIgtsCHgy2aQCLQ0akBSv5fy8pEaIFtLr7DLS6ZDjk_1780324682 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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. Then maybe we can keep the email based review? Still the only one with a decent offline capability. > 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. > > >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. > > > > It's similar to what we have now in qemu.git, except that a git forge is used. > > > > Stefan > >