On 04/08/16 9:41 am, "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
>On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 06:38:23AM +, Prerna Saxena wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 30/07/16 2:19 am, "Eric Blake" wrote:
>>
>> >On 07/28/2016 01:07 AM, Prerna Saxena wrote:
>> >> From: Prerna Saxena
>> >>
>> >> This introduces the VHOS
On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 06:38:23AM +, Prerna Saxena wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> On 30/07/16 2:19 am, "Eric Blake" wrote:
>
> >On 07/28/2016 01:07 AM, Prerna Saxena wrote:
> >> From: Prerna Saxena
> >>
> >> This introduces the VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_REPLY_ACK.
> >>
> >
> >> +
> >> +With this pro
(Intentionally top-posting:)
Hey Eric,
That's really odd. I don't recall changing anything, but I just checked my
(other) e-mail on the nongnu.org's archive and indeed it looks awful. (It looks
fine on both clients I use, though.) Thanks for letting me know, I'll sort this
out.
Cheers,
Felipe
On 30/07/16 2:19 am, "Eric Blake" wrote:
>On 07/28/2016 01:07 AM, Prerna Saxena wrote:
>> From: Prerna Saxena
>>
>> This introduces the VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_REPLY_ACK.
>>
>
>> +
>> +With this protocol extension negotiated, the sender (QEMU) can set the
>> +"need_reply" [Bit 3] flag to an
On 07/28/2016 01:07 AM, Prerna Saxena wrote:
> From: Prerna Saxena
>
> This introduces the VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_REPLY_ACK.
>
> +
> +With this protocol extension negotiated, the sender (QEMU) can set the
> +"need_reply" [Bit 3] flag to any command. This indicates that
> +the client MUST respond
On 07/29/2016 09:31 AM, Felipe Franciosi wrote:
> Heya,
>
> On 29 Jul 2016, at 13:47, Marc-André Lureau
> mailto:marcandre.lur...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Prerna Saxena
> mailto:saxenap@gmail.com>> wrote:
> From: Prerna Saxena
> mailto:prerna.sax...@
Heya,
On 29 Jul 2016, at 13:47, Marc-André Lureau
mailto:marcandre.lur...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Prerna Saxena
mailto:saxenap@gmail.com>> wrote:
From: Prerna Saxena
mailto:prerna.sax...@nutanix.com>>
This introduces the VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_REPLY_ACK.
I
Hi
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Prerna Saxena wrote:
> From: Prerna Saxena
>
> This introduces the VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_REPLY_ACK.
>
> If negotiated, client applications should send a u64 payload in
> response to any message that contains the "need_reply" bit set
> on the message flags. Se
From: Prerna Saxena
This introduces the VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_REPLY_ACK.
If negotiated, client applications should send a u64 payload in
response to any message that contains the "need_reply" bit set
on the message flags. Setting the payload to "zero" indicates the
command finished successfully.
