Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 13 May 2021 16:10:18 +0200
From:   Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>
To:     Arseny Krasnov <arseny.krasnov@kaspersky.com>
Cc:     Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Jorgen Hansen <jhansen@vmware.com>,
        Andra Paraschiv <andraprs@amazon.com>,
        Norbert Slusarek <nslusarek@gmx.net>,
        Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        stsp2@yandex.ru, oxffffaa@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v9 00/19] virtio/vsock: introduce SOCK_SEQPACKET
 support
Message-ID: <20210513141018.pqsmb5wqbjrbwwho@steredhat>
References: <20210508163027.3430238-1-arseny.krasnov@kaspersky.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210508163027.3430238-1-arseny.krasnov@kaspersky.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hi Arseny,

On Sat, May 08, 2021 at 07:30:23PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
>	This patchset implements support of SOCK_SEQPACKET for virtio
>transport.
>	As SOCK_SEQPACKET guarantees to save record boundaries, so to
>do it, new bit for field 'flags' was added: SEQ_EOR. This bit is
>set to 1 in last RW packet of message.
>	Now as  packets of one socket are not reordered neither on vsock
>nor on vhost transport layers, such bit allows to restore original
>message on receiver's side. If user's buffer is smaller than message
>length, when all out of size data is dropped.
>	Maximum length of datagram is not limited as in stream socket,
>because same credit logic is used. Difference with stream socket is
>that user is not woken up until whole record is received or error
>occurred. Implementation also supports 'MSG_TRUNC' flags.
>	Tests also implemented.
>
>	Thanks to stsp2@yandex.ru for encouragements and initial design
>recommendations.
>
> Arseny Krasnov (19):
>  af_vsock: update functions for connectible socket
>  af_vsock: separate wait data loop
>  af_vsock: separate receive data loop
>  af_vsock: implement SEQPACKET receive loop
>  af_vsock: implement send logic for SEQPACKET
>  af_vsock: rest of SEQPACKET support
>  af_vsock: update comments for stream sockets
>  virtio/vsock: set packet's type in virtio_transport_send_pkt_info()
>  virtio/vsock: simplify credit update function API
>  virtio/vsock: defines and constants for SEQPACKET
>  virtio/vsock: dequeue callback for SOCK_SEQPACKET
>  virtio/vsock: add SEQPACKET receive logic
>  virtio/vsock: rest of SOCK_SEQPACKET support
>  virtio/vsock: enable SEQPACKET for transport
>  vhost/vsock: enable SEQPACKET for transport
>  vsock/loopback: enable SEQPACKET for transport
>  vsock_test: add SOCK_SEQPACKET tests
>  virtio/vsock: update trace event for SEQPACKET
>  af_vsock: serialize writes to shared socket
>
> drivers/vhost/vsock.c                        |  42 +-
> include/linux/virtio_vsock.h                 |   9 +
> include/net/af_vsock.h                       |   8 +
> .../events/vsock_virtio_transport_common.h   |   5 +-
> include/uapi/linux/virtio_vsock.h            |   9 +
> net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c                     | 417 +++++++++++------
> net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c             |  25 +
> net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c      | 129 ++++-
> net/vmw_vsock/vsock_loopback.c               |  11 +
> tools/testing/vsock/util.c                   |  32 +-
> tools/testing/vsock/util.h                   |   3 +
> tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c             |  63 +++
> 12 files changed, 594 insertions(+), 159 deletions(-)
>
> v8 -> v9:
> General changelog:
> - see per patch change log.
>

I reviewed this series and left some comments.

Before remove the RFC tag, please check that all the commit messages 
contains the right information.

Also, I recommend you take a look on how the other commits in the Linux 
tree are written because the commits in this series look like todo 
lists.
For RFC could be fine, but for the final version it would be better to 
rewrite them following the advice written here: 
Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst

Thanks,
Stefano