Hi On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 6:28 PM, Marc-André Lureau <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi > > ----- Original Message ----- >> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 06:03:50PM +0200, [email protected] wrote: >> > From: Marc-André Lureau <[email protected]> >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > In a previous series "RFCv2: vhost-user: shutdown and reconnection", I >> > proposed to add a new slave request to handle graceful shutdown, for >> > both qemu configuration, server or client, while keeping the guest >> > running with link down status. >> >> OK so I would say patches 1-4 are bugfixes, looks like they >> can be Cc stable even? > > 4 is being used by 5 and 10. > 2-3 are only for testing. > > 4-8 are nice to have as they avoid obvious problems/crashes when handling > disconnected state and add basic reconnection checks. > > 9 was already considered for stable by Eric in a previous series > > 10 would be good to have if 1 is accepted, to check the minimum works as > expected >
FYI, I have a follow up series (~20 patches, https://github.com/elmarco/qemu/tree/vhost-user-reconnect) doing mostly cleanups and extra checks for disconnection at run time. In particular, it should avoid some obvious crashers/asserts, and prevents qemu from running as long the initial vhost_user_start() didn't succeed (so initial flags are set). I would like to know how to proceed with the follow-up: should I resend the whole series or should we review/merge this rfc first (even though it is known to be incomplete in many disconnect cases that the follow up fixes). thanks -- Marc-André Lureau
