search for: virtio_net_f_vsock

...>> >>>>>> After the discussion, based on this point I will try to implement >>>>>> this idea, but I am not familiar with the virtio-net, that is a >>>>>> pity. :( >>>>> I think we should have a new feature flag for this. E.g VIRTIO_NET_F_VSOCK. And host should fail the negotiation if guest doesn't support this to avoid confusion. When this feature is negotiated, we will use it only for VOSCK transport. This can simplify things somehow. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -------------------------Simple...

...d >> want to know everyone's suggestions. >> >> After the discussion, based on this point I will try to implement >> this idea, but I am not familiar with the virtio-net, that is a >> pity. :( > > > I think we should have a new feature flag for this. E.g VIRTIO_NET_F_VSOCK. And host should fail the negotiation if guest doesn't support this to avoid confusion. When this feature is negotiated, we will use it only for VOSCK transport. This can simplify things somehow. > > >> -------------------------Simple idea------------------------------ >> &g...

...d >> want to know everyone's suggestions. >> >> After the discussion, based on this point I will try to implement >> this idea, but I am not familiar with the virtio-net, that is a >> pity. :( > > > I think we should have a new feature flag for this. E.g VIRTIO_NET_F_VSOCK. And host should fail the negotiation if guest doesn't support this to avoid confusion. When this feature is negotiated, we will use it only for VOSCK transport. This can simplify things somehow. > > >> -------------------------Simple idea------------------------------ >> &g...

...ggestions. >>>> >>>> After the discussion, based on this point I will try to implement >>>> this idea, but I am not familiar with the virtio-net, that is a >>>> pity. :( >>> >>> I think we should have a new feature flag for this. E.g VIRTIO_NET_F_VSOCK. And host should fail the negotiation if guest doesn't support this to avoid confusion. When this feature is negotiated, we will use it only for VOSCK transport. This can simplify things somehow. >>> >>> >>>> -------------------------Simple idea--------------------...

...ggestions. >>>> >>>> After the discussion, based on this point I will try to implement >>>> this idea, but I am not familiar with the virtio-net, that is a >>>> pity. :( >>> >>> I think we should have a new feature flag for this. E.g VIRTIO_NET_F_VSOCK. And host should fail the negotiation if guest doesn't support this to avoid confusion. When this feature is negotiated, we will use it only for VOSCK transport. This can simplify things somehow. >>> >>> >>>> -------------------------Simple idea--------------------...

...to discuss with everyone again, and > want to know everyone's suggestions. > > After the discussion, based on this point I will try to implement > this idea, but I am not familiar with the virtio-net, that is a > pity. :( I think we should have a new feature flag for this. E.g VIRTIO_NET_F_VSOCK. And host should fail the negotiation if guest doesn't support this to avoid confusion. When this feature is negotiated, we will use it only for VOSCK transport. This can simplify things somehow. > -------------------------Simple idea------------------------------ > > 1. The packe...

...o know everyone's suggestions. >>> >>> After the discussion, based on this point I will try to implement >>> this idea, but I am not familiar with the virtio-net, that is a >>> pity. :( >> >> I think we should have a new feature flag for this. E.g VIRTIO_NET_F_VSOCK. And host should fail the negotiation if guest doesn't support this to avoid confusion. When this feature is negotiated, we will use it only for VOSCK transport. This can simplify things somehow. >> >> >>> -------------------------Simple idea------------------------------ &...

Hi Stefan, Michael, Jason and everyone, Several days ago, I discussed with jason about "Vsock over Virtio-net". This idea has two advantages: First, it can use many great features of virtio-net, like batching, mergeable rx buffer and multiqueue, etc. Second, it can reduce many duplicate codes and make it easy to be maintained. Before the implement, I want to discuss with everyone

Hi Stefan, Michael, Jason and everyone, Several days ago, I discussed with jason about "Vsock over Virtio-net". This idea has two advantages: First, it can use many great features of virtio-net, like batching, mergeable rx buffer and multiqueue, etc. Second, it can reduce many duplicate codes and make it easy to be maintained. Before the implement, I want to discuss with everyone

...ns. >>>>> >>>>> After the discussion, based on this point I will try to implement >>>>> this idea, but I am not familiar with the virtio-net, that is a >>>>> pity. :( >>>> I think we should have a new feature flag for this. E.g VIRTIO_NET_F_VSOCK. And host should fail the negotiation if guest doesn't support this to avoid confusion. When this feature is negotiated, we will use it only for VOSCK transport. This can simplify things somehow. >>>> >>>> >>>>> -------------------------Simple idea--------...