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:   Fri, 6 Aug 2021 09:18:57 +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,
        oxffffaa@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/7] virtio/vsock: add 'VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM' bit
Message-ID: <20210806071857.h4zneiblcf5tathq@steredhat>
References: <20210726163137.2589102-1-arseny.krasnov@kaspersky.com>
 <20210726163307.2589516-1-arseny.krasnov@kaspersky.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210726163307.2589516-1-arseny.krasnov@kaspersky.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 07:33:04PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
>This bit is used to mark end of messages('EOM' - end of message), while
>'VIRIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR' is used to pass MSG_EOR.
>
>Signed-off-by: Arseny Krasnov <arseny.krasnov@kaspersky.com>
>---
> include/uapi/linux/virtio_vsock.h | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
>diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/virtio_vsock.h b/include/uapi/linux/virtio_vsock.h
>index 3dd3555b2740..1de3211a2988 100644
>--- a/include/uapi/linux/virtio_vsock.h
>+++ b/include/uapi/linux/virtio_vsock.h
>@@ -98,6 +98,7 @@ enum virtio_vsock_shutdown {
> /* VIRTIO_VSOCK_OP_RW flags values */
> enum virtio_vsock_rw {
> 	VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOR = 1,
>+	VIRTIO_VSOCK_SEQ_EOM = 2,
> };

Already said, but I'll repeat it for completeness.

It's better to rename the flag 1 and use it in the same way we did 
before, so it's backward compatible.

Obviously we have to update the specifications too, explaining the 
difference between the two :-)

Thanks,
Stefano