From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: virtio-dev-return-6805-cohuck=redhat.com@lists.oasis-open.org Sender: List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Received: from lists.oasis-open.org (oasis-open.org [10.110.1.242]) by lists.oasis-open.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BDC1985E3D for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 14:43:32 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 15:43:22 +0100 From: Gerd Hoffmann Message-ID: <20200227144322.qasfqiyg47vfcqur@sirius.home.kraxel.org> References: <20200207182842.770bfb27@collabora.com> <20200225162105.1912fae0@collabora.com> <20200227100951.19e5c8df@collabora.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] [RFC] Upstreaming virtio-wayland (or an alternative) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline To: David Stevens Cc: Boris Brezillon , Stefan Hajnoczi , Zach Reizner , =?utf-8?B?U3TDqXBoYW5l?= Marchesin , Tomeu Vizoso , Tomasz Figa , virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org, Alexandros Frantzis List-ID: Hi, > > > Can you provide more detail about the envisioned scope of this > > > framework? > > > > The scope is "generic message+FD passing" interface, which is pretty > > much what virtio-wl provides. >=20 > I think that scope is too broad. A socket is a 'generic message+FD' > interface. Unless there's the expectation that the interface should > eventually be as flexible as a regular domain socket, I think it would > be a good idea to frame the scope of the interface more precisely. Yes, sure, we need to exactly specify the different kinds of file handles / resources. I think it makes sense to have a virtio feature flag for each of them, so guest+host can easily negotiate what they are able to handle and what not. cheers, Gerd --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org