On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 02:54:59PM +0000, Dexuan Cui wrote: > > I know the kernel has already had a VM Sockets driver (AF_VSOCK) based > on VMware VMCI (net/vmw_vsock/, drivers/misc/vmw_vmci), and KVM is > proposing AF_VSOCK of virtio version: > http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=145952064004765&w=2 > > However, though Hyper-V Sockets may seem conceptually similar to > AF_VOSCK, there are differences in the transportation layer, and IMO these > make the direct code reusing impractical: > > 1. In AF_VSOCK, the endpoint type is: <u32 ContextID, u32 Port>, but in > AF_HYPERV, the endpoint type is: <GUID VM_ID, GUID ServiceID>. Here GUID > is 128-bit.
OK, this could be a problem. > 2. AF_VSOCK supports SOCK_DGRAM, while AF_HYPERV doesn't. > > 3. AF_VSOCK supports some special sock opts, like SO_VM_SOCKETS_BUFFER_SIZE, > SO_VM_SOCKETS_BUFFER_MIN/MAX_SIZE and SO_VM_SOCKETS_CONNECT_TIMEOUT. > These are meaningless to AF_HYPERV. > > 4. Some AF_VSOCK's VMCI transportation ops are meanless to AF_HYPERV/VMBus, > like .notify_recv_init > .notify_recv_pre_block > .notify_recv_pre_dequeue > .notify_recv_post_dequeue > .notify_send_init > .notify_send_pre_block > .notify_send_pre_enqueue > .notify_send_post_enqueue > etc. > > So I think we'd better introduce a new address family: AF_HYPERV. I don't quite understand the logic here. All these sound like "AF_VSOCK has this feature we don't need so (rather than not using the feature) we are not going to use AF_VSOCK". I would understand if you pointed out features important for you that are missing in AF_VSOCK but this kind of reasoning sounds strange to me. Michal Kubecek _______________________________________________ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
