Hi Marc, First of all, sorry again for late response!
Last time I tried with your first version, I found few issues related with reconnect, mainly on the acked_feautres lost. While checking your new code, I found that you've already solved that, which is great. So, I tried harder this time, your patches work great, except that I found few nits. On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 01:16:21PM +0200, marcandre.lur...@redhat.com wrote: > From: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lur...@redhat.com> ... > +Slave message types > +------------------- > + > + * VHOST_USER_SLAVE_SHUTDOWN: > + Id: 1 > + Master payload: N/A > + Slave payload: u64 > + > + Request the master to shutdown the slave. A 0 reply is for > + success, in which case the slave may close all connections > + immediately and quit. Assume we are using ovs + dpdk here, that we could have two vhost-user connections. While ovs tries to initiate a restart, it might unregister the two connections one by one. In such case, two VHOST_USER_SLAVE_SHUTDOWN request will be sent, and two replies will get. Therefore, I don't think it's a proper ask here to let the backend implementation to do quit here. > > switch (msg.request) { > + case VHOST_USER_SLAVE_SHUTDOWN: { > + uint64_t success = 1; /* 0 is for success */ > + if (dev->stop) { > + dev->stop(dev); > + success = 0; > + } > + msg.payload.u64 = success; > + msg.size = sizeof(msg.payload.u64); > + size = send(u->slave_fd, &msg, VHOST_USER_HDR_SIZE + msg.size, 0); > + if (size != VHOST_USER_HDR_SIZE + msg.size) { > + error_report("Failed to write reply."); > + } > + break; You might want to remove the slave_fd from watch list? We might also need to close slave_fd here, assuming that we will no longer use it when VHOST_USER_SLAVE_SHUTDOWN is received? I'm asking because I found a seg fault issue sometimes, due to opaque is NULL. --yliu