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=-2.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,PDS_BAD_THREAD_QP_64, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no 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 5C8F1C433C1 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 01:01:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 924BC619D3 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 01:01:05 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 924BC619D3 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:39026 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lOrtQ-0006GR-9W for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 21:01:04 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:58050) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lOrrm-0005Qe-3e for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 20:59:22 -0400 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:8265) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lOrrj-00024N-7h for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 20:59:21 -0400 IronPort-SDR: dfeWT6FVo94SA5yfbYZ9xUtwWIdV2ECpkdbLYaxWtKkJ/00LmtAcjQcU8KpJkhjvAh2ftllu2h Cn9aP+yZNz8w== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6000,8403,9932"; a="177716738" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.81,272,1610438400"; d="scan'208";a="177716738" Received: from fmsmga004.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.48]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 23 Mar 2021 17:59:12 -0700 IronPort-SDR: XrT1ofADyJftNnM5pdrfzncDzJOjJFtGVuxKWnZCvwUEWPthxdV9Q+60VDpbehIQqbflFaLRDt dqh+LBXuuKfg== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.81,272,1610438400"; d="scan'208";a="435774700" Received: from fmsmsx603.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.126.83]) by fmsmga004.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 23 Mar 2021 17:59:12 -0700 Received: from shsmsx605.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.109.6.215) by fmsmsx603.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.126.83) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2106.2; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 17:59:11 -0700 Received: from shsmsx605.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.109.6.215) by SHSMSX605.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.109.6.215) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2106.2; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 08:59:09 +0800 Received: from shsmsx605.ccr.corp.intel.com ([10.109.6.215]) by SHSMSX605.ccr.corp.intel.com ([10.109.6.215]) with mapi id 15.01.2106.013; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 08:59:09 +0800 From: "Zhang, Chen" To: Markus Armbruster Subject: RE: [PATCH V4 2/7] qapi/net.json: Add L4_Connection definition Thread-Topic: [PATCH V4 2/7] qapi/net.json: Add L4_Connection definition Thread-Index: AQHXHHRy9AmyzOXAOUuzqhkS7ODhyaqLdaKdgAQ8XnCAAEOtSYABJQqQgABBkvuAAPu6sA== Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 00:59:09 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20210319035508.113741-1-chen.zhang@intel.com> <20210319035508.113741-3-chen.zhang@intel.com> <877dm3i1qk.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <5b75057ecc784296aa271f5f6692906a@intel.com> <87k0pz4bg8.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <4ffb0d8b135b40caba777a830b70ae18@intel.com> <871rc6urdc.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> In-Reply-To: <871rc6urdc.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: dlp-product: dlpe-windows dlp-version: 11.5.1.3 dlp-reaction: no-action x-originating-ip: [10.239.127.36] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=134.134.136.20; envelope-from=chen.zhang@intel.com; helo=mga02.intel.com X-Spam_score_int: -41 X-Spam_score: -4.2 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.2 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Lukas Straub , Li Zhijian , Jason Wang , qemu-dev , "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" , Zhang Chen Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" > -----Original Message----- > From: Markus Armbruster > Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 5:55 PM > To: Zhang, Chen > Cc: Lukas Straub ; Li Zhijian > ; Jason Wang ; qemu- > dev ; Dr. David Alan Gilbert > ; Zhang Chen > Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 2/7] qapi/net.json: Add L4_Connection definition >=20 > "Zhang, Chen" writes: >=20 > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Markus Armbruster > [...] > >> Naming the argument type L4_Connection is misleading. > >> > >> Even naming the match arguments L4_Connection would be misleading. > >> "Connection" has a specific meaning in networking. There are TCP > >> connections. There is no such thing as an UDP connection. > >> > >> A TCP connection is uniquely identified by a pair of endpoints, i.e. > >> by source address, source port, destination address, destination port. > >> Same for other connection-oriented protocols. The protocol is not > >> part of the connection. Thus, L4_Connection would be misleading even > >> for the connection-oriented case. > >> > >> You need a named type for colo-passthrough-add's argument because > you > >> share it with colo-passthrough-del. I'm not sure that's what we want > >> (I'm going to write more on that in a moment). If it is what we > >> want, then please pick a another, descriptive name. > > > > What do you think the "L4BypassRule" or "NetworkRule" ? >=20 > NetworkRule is too generic. >=20 > What about ColoPassthroughRule? It can be used by net filter modules(filter mirror,filter-dump....) in the = future, that's not just for COLO. PassthroughRule is better? Thanks Chen