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 0F10D3DFC81 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 2026 20:05:06 +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=1780344309; cv=none; b=uyke8yJq+/nlqUw7GHerbwGA11Nrp/bh2lyUQHyE7GcXT1G1SxIalIiPQzHpZEJCcmxn2q6b4LuHj7adHRhF+5x/R+RMdvYSGx/2gKws9WjsW9+qYkdfmKkPMg4Lj32cSuLOojDNjdmLDJhLYw6arZLPQ5tL9kW9AikjVmdUQo8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1780344309; c=relaxed/simple; bh=81ovYnNiP4aKX3YJ/SNX42hGsGdBQEPmG18z+lkqLW0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Disposition; b=fTLiHK5yraBr2yeiKTdPqXp5jz/YWmQQK/H1ZkYt+qkZ3dKvHBHLcOpxRc5R59nr3Hz7AQKQZWJwCoV2bkyB90bjNwdgpAppRD5ve4DgNbBkj+YM1O3PMLtpPDVY7ISYEjVTGbdCUd7NSHO5gxwLMWbZZ28WX9nrVg2yrBTT73k= 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=XDcMktPc; 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="XDcMktPc" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1780344305; 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=plaHHP/owetcd3quHl6OhFcQ/AAirdRtHSTz6XMkIes=; b=XDcMktPcKOEOQeIxsc0+MNWDcG7EEwXNB7++iOEu2GYm/ehVfxRNEmSJw2Qzpu3TruHcgW P1QSe/Uk1D/YAZjQXcs49Qkh/l9sN3SOyCqO8ZO2xUzBJyLEkZ5Q1HEO8w7uqa097jSDpk Qf7QCG2ShCGRl6lL4eBUuKqAdvjaHGg= Received: from mail-wr1-f69.google.com (mail-wr1-f69.google.com [209.85.221.69]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-635-wLnrxEW4NZyDhKn6CCjddA-1; Mon, 01 Jun 2026 16:05:02 -0400 X-MC-Unique: wLnrxEW4NZyDhKn6CCjddA-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: wLnrxEW4NZyDhKn6CCjddA_1780344302 Received: by mail-wr1-f69.google.com with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-45eebc943bfso2216200f8f.0 for ; Mon, 01 Jun 2026 13:05:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1780344301; x=1780949101; 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=plaHHP/owetcd3quHl6OhFcQ/AAirdRtHSTz6XMkIes=; b=HRush7vC5KJ2qAat7rfEX3ED0KKLa6fGc7Y3uVZ+tK6TCvJTR+47656th02Bf2eOI0 tTALjU2pBs8IoVcJsvVNUhQerbnlodJ9dg8didfvkUlsNwIp9VlIzzQxcADRNrb6jIgp ee8TVRd/QSuljRnGMYP2447yP8zgZxiVbQTQk9CQ8OBzGJBlMrOl3L+LdAafOye5OX/H vg550t9cWmJLD6LU/QSKHoy1nnaS9MFoGbJLFdbGRCnQUqLAuzakEBA781a2zeHHxLW+ kFMKoOTwRDhPQoPTdUL/WjLQSdiwcAG9xUeq5bMJLKcpL5fcQASYw77BDDLlArwTIUNa 9MZQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AFNElJ+UeXnUzvE6KGi9rmoE+bCeX7MbWl7wBaHQWF82v2hjM8xRSnotY+r3O6BQ/RV/tEU73WG2U1W0FoBzFJpztw==@lists.linux.dev X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzLZFMLS9EN0ThrSlRDaDzhhI8oL/BViSWltobgJXAnTWs7gUOC m5O7RfBqVNqUksHF4dhp22szQi1f43QzqoeDg84NUQpfDbkorE6whuDl8QD+YyJBSZa7GQg6nFM HarQi7f+P3LJ2N3HS/wDzkJPeFxgGCPStKZuWLGi8INXQp0L1SZwYqHAwQZFqdrhwUPxW X-Gm-Gg: Acq92OE2Sd6esoSs8s2CiOFMnH1s++W3rmIjSJV/TPfrHSKRdjm69LL1SdjyZpV0xk3 ixmwaozIjP44Q95uf3vQGW7rQRDz9dHhrtFFzbeUyY4nNyMGF3hK59J/o6SwqKKG6MHW3381x5m pXz1Q0a5OIRtIDl2OGbCfW8xMS29/1kKv+61158VUE2gsBVnsnK+5QpbUHd0hcKTKaxwrzMlQNd Fc4dWiMHl34sbSskEEKtC4sk1MfICVwA0o1Y6biQc9wLtLhxIwN9eAqwmbc/69Tc8kJWbWniWcO GreoA91mH80Jl4uHnDvF6z5iqrUzPKRax6UIWit+Pero4cROLmGtD7uZ3YC6/v0kiL+SMGVr859 VepxG16qrTt0cmsCOJ3yn0pcl1cVlPVgP1u0KyV4yJ6XHq1IpnhgpOA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:8a09:20b0:490:3cf0:8d81 with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-490b0e9355cmr10784505e9.13.1780344301427; Mon, 01 Jun 2026 13:05:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:8a09:20b0:490:3cf0:8d81 with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-490b0e9355cmr10784075e9.13.1780344300888; Mon, 01 Jun 2026 13:05:00 -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 5b1f17b1804b1-490b0e19a06sm15089025e9.5.2026.06.01.13.04.58 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 01 Jun 2026 13:05:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2026 16:04:56 -0400 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" To: Stefan Hajnoczi Cc: Albert Esteve , 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 , 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: <20260601160352-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> <20260601151815.GC411459@fedora> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: virtio-comment@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20260601151815.GC411459@fedora> X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-MFC-PROC-ID: 12STRYuv8vChagcBJBj3xZD4CY4pdDYGT9-TEQyOzz4_1780344302 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 11:18:15AM -0400, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > 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. > > > > 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. > > I don't see a reason to block vhost-user.rst changes during QEMU's > freeze. If Michael sent a vhost-user spec pull request during freeze I > would merge it. > > > >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. > > I get a sense that this is about politics in the end. Do people feel > they are not represented and would like to have more influence in the > vhost-user spec? > > You bring up project neutrality and a model where Michael is no longer > the sole maintainer. It will be necessary to propose a concrete roadmap > and also to explain the concerns about neutrality more so it's clear > they won't be an issue anymore in the future system. > > Why is the current system not neutral and how will the new system solve > that? > > Who should be a co-maintainer? > > Stefan And also, qemu currently acts like a reference implementation. Which is something. -- MST