Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 8 Apr 2019 17:17:35 +0200
From:   Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Cc:     Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>,
        Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@gmail.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
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

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