Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] docs: vhost-user: add in-band kick/call messages

[Johannes Berg]

On Wed, 2019-09-11 at 17:31 +0200, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:

> > +``VHOST_USER_VQ_CALL``
> 
> "call" should be "kick".  "kick" is the driver->device request
> submission notification and "call" is the device->driver request
> completion notification.

Ahrg, yes. I confuse this all the time, sorry, will fix.

Btw, speaking of confusion ... this document may need some cleanup wrt.
the "client" language since it states that both sides might be a socket
server or client, but then goes on to talk about the "client" as though
it was equivalent to "slave", where normally it's actually the other way
around (the device is the one listening on the socket, i.e. it's the
server). This is most pronounced in the section "Starting and stopping
rings".

IMHO, it'd be good to talk more about "device" and "host" instead of
"slave" and "master" too since that's clearer, and just replace *all*
that language accordingly, but YMMV.

> > +  :id: 34
> > +  :equivalent ioctl: N/A
> > +  :slave payload: vring state description
> > +  :master payload: N/A
> > +
> > +  When the ``VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_KICK_CALL_MSGS`` protocol feature has
> > +  been successfully negotiated, this message may be submitted by the master
> > +  to indicate that a buffer was added to the vring instead of signalling it
> > +  using the vring's event FD or having the slave rely on polling.
> > +
> > +  The state.num field is currently reserved and must be set to 0.
> 
> Please include an explanation of how this message is different from
> the existing methods.  Maybe something like:
> 
>   Unlike eventfd or polling, this message allows the master to control
> precisely when virtqueue processing happens.  When the master uses
> ``need_reply`` to receive a reply, it knows the device has become
> aware of the virtqueue activity.

Sure, thanks, I'll incorporate that.

> >  Slave message types
> >  -------------------
> > 
> > @@ -1246,6 +1265,19 @@ Slave message types
> >    ``VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_HOST_NOTIFIER`` protocol feature has been
> >    successfully negotiated.
> > 
> > +``VHOST_USER_VQ_KICK``
> 
> s/KICK/CALL/

Indeed. Wait, that should be VHOST_USER_SLAVE_VQ_CALL, actually. Maybe I
already did fix that in v2?

johannes