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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_NEOMUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 892DCC10F13 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 15:17:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62E492148E for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 15:17:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728822AbfDHPRk (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Apr 2019 11:17:40 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-f65.google.com ([209.85.128.65]:51370 "EHLO mail-wm1-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726973AbfDHPRk (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Apr 2019 11:17:40 -0400 Received: by mail-wm1-f65.google.com with SMTP id 4so14821864wmf.1 for ; Mon, 08 Apr 2019 08:17:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=w6z7MBI8+5GoJnaZnj0gEJa1yCqr80vB4dEYmuxnu7Q=; b=OxlVIKOM2MUV9yD/8+W6y4VePrwiIWiL95dW3NA18To8SwhaoAgqBCQy7H9JZSRwIi lxTANgDFp6uo1DCMGHV5arMglp9napFt5tjuCZrg9JqRtLiArN1+opkA37IqRrYMM2DV Z9pFcLqkF5ZWff032Rj8SlkSQngGGE3Y9sE79Dlke4Y7I4t5FBAykCeT5g/G5iFKoO/m 24J9/zcgBwLwwSXfPnhVtDA1BYVwUoFGHeRI1Mjup6z5SWeKeQm7Wt62LncDS62IN8jp /ovQjYz3/0vQRcNcROdA3+zxULxULpcVFk16Ad/qafH1VtnAQU/6drMSMxLLVQBO41Bu JM5g== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXtQ1TO0/2R/P+Jycr4+OSLn97TL6gUElg6/OHCJfR6AzevKtaq FOYRnnhfsKsCjg5m2oB/roCdSrvMx+Y= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwltm8QBf/OmuBj4P6eatTDa6YrSxIwOSgoMgA7Ad/sLTugH590ZkpwmFcQ0sZ69EWlsXWUgQ== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:2109:: with SMTP id h9mr19008264wmh.68.1554736658631; Mon, 08 Apr 2019 08:17:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from steredhat (host35-203-static.12-87-b.business.telecomitalia.it. [87.12.203.35]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f1sm8880617wml.28.2019.04.08.08.17.37 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Mon, 08 Apr 2019 08:17:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2019 17:17:35 +0200 From: Stefano Garzarella To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi , Stefan Hajnoczi , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Jason Wang , kvm@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 3/4] vsock/virtio: change the maximum packet size allowed Message-ID: <20190408151735.itsfswajk5ww3ejv@steredhat> References: <20190404105838.101559-1-sgarzare@redhat.com> <20190404105838.101559-4-sgarzare@redhat.com> <20190405082447.GD25152@stefanha-x1.localdomain> <20190405100747.dbwi3sjaudp3d2wa@steredhat> <20190408093723.GP15001@stefanha-x1.localdomain> <20190408145531.yreyawkn5vjqj7sl@steredhat> <20190408105619-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190408105619-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 10:57:44AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 04:55:31PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > > > Anyway, any change to this behavior requires compatibility so new guest > > > drivers work with old vhost_vsock.ko. Therefore we should probably just > > > leave the limit for now. > > > > I understood your point of view and I completely agree with you. > > But, until we don't have a way to expose features/versions between guest > > and host, > > Why not use the standard virtio feature negotiation mechanism for this? > Yes, I have this in my mind :), but I want to understand better if we can use virtio-net also for this mechanism. For now, I don't think limiting the packets to 64 KiB is a big issue. What do you think if I postpone this when I have more clear if we can use virtio-net or not? (in order to avoid duplicated work) Thanks, Stefano