On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 at 17:57, Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On 2019/1/15 下午10:51, Yongji Xie wrote: > >> Well, this may work but here're my points: > >> > >> 1) The code want to recover from backed crash by introducing extra space > >> to store inflight data, but it still depends on the backend to set/get > >> the inflight state > >> > >> 2) Since the backend could be killed at any time, the backend must have > >> the ability to recover from the partial inflight state > >> > >> So it looks to me 1) tends to be self-contradictory and 2) tends to be > >> recursive. The above lines show how tricky could the code looks like. > >> > >> Solving this at vhost-user level through at backend is probably wrong. > >> It's time to consider the support from virtio itself. > >> > > I agree that supporting this in virtio level may be better. For > > example, resubmitting inflight I/O once DEVICE_NEEDS_RESET is set in > > Stefan's proposal. But I still think QEMU should be able to provide > > this ability too. Supposed that one vhost-user backend need to support > > multiple VMs. We can't enable reconnect ability until all VMs' guest > > driver support the new feature. It's limited. > > > That's the way virtio evolves. > > > > But if QEMU have the > > ability to store inflight buffer, the backend could at least have a > > chance to support this case. > > > The problem is, you need a careful designed protocol described somewhere
That's what we should discuss in detail in this series. > (is vhost-user.txt a good place for this?). And this work will be > (partial) duplicated for the future support from virtio spec itself. > I think the duplicated code is to maintain the inflight descriptor list which should be in backend. That's not main work in this series. And backend could choose to include it or not. Thanks, Yongji
