Re: vhost-user (virtio-fs) migration: back end state

[Hanna Czenczek]

On 08.02.23 15:32, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 at 07:29, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 at 04:08, Hanna Czenczek <hreitz@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > On 06.02.23 17:27, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 at 07:36, Hanna Czenczek <hreitz@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > Should we schedule a call with Jason, Michael, Juan, David, etc to
> > > > discuss further? That way there's less chance of spending weeks
> > > > working on something only to be asked to change the approach later.
> > > Sure, sounds good!  I’ve taken a look into what state we’ll need to
> > > migrate already, but I’ll take a more detailed look now so that it’s
> > > clear what our requirements are.
> Hi Hanna,
> The next step is getting agreement on how the vhost-user device state
> interface will work. Do you want to draft the new vhost-user protocol
> messages and put together slides for discussion with Michael, Jason,
> Juan, and David in the next KVM call? That might be the best way to
> get agreement. Doing it via email is possible too but I guess it will
> take longer.
>
> If you don't want to design the vhost-user protocol changes yourself
> then someone on this email thread can help with that.

I’ll need to talk about the whole thing to Stefano and German first 
(we’re collaborating on virtio-fs migration, looking at different 
aspects of it).  Also, I think I’ll want to look into the code a bit 
first and fiddle around to get a working prototype so I get an idea of 
what might be feasible at all.  I wouldn’t want to propose something 
that actually can’t work when I try to make it work in practice. O:)

Hanna