From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50594) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ayAA5-0005ka-6t for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 04 May 2016 23:41:19 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ayA9t-0003bs-Ld for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 04 May 2016 23:41:07 -0400 Received: from mga04.intel.com ([192.55.52.120]:18735) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ayA9t-0003Yv-E0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 04 May 2016 23:41:01 -0400 Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 20:44:37 -0700 From: Yuanhan Liu Message-ID: <20160505034437.GX5641@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> References: <20160428052304.GF25677@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <20160429174835.GH5641@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <20160501134233-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <20160501210442.GK5641@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <20160502080610-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <20160502143051-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <20160504220549-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160504220549-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 11/18] vhost-user: add shutdown support List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Marc-Andr=E9?= Lureau , QEMU , Ilya Maximets , jonshin@cisco.com, Tetsuya Mukawa , "Xie, Huawei" Hello, On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 10:13:49PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > How do you avoid it? > > > > Management is required to make this robust, auto-reconnect > > > is handy for people bypassing management. > > > > tbh, I don't like autoreconnect. My previous series didn't include > > this and assumed the feature would be supported only when qemu is > > configured to be the server. I added reconnect upon request by users. > > I don't have better solutions so OK I guess. Yes, it's a request from me :) Well, there may be few others also requested that. The reason I had this asking is that, so far, we just have only one vhost-user frontend, and that is QEMU. But we may have many backends, I'm aware of 4 at the time writing, including the vubr from QEMU. While we could do vhost-user client and reconnect implementation on all backends, it's clear that implementing it in the only backend (QEMU) introduces more benefits. OTOH, I could implement DPDK vhost-user as client and try reconnect there, if that could makes all stuff a bit easier. --yliu