On 01.09.25 14:50, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
On 30.08.25 11:17, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
This option simply duplicates the @vhost option since long ago
(10 years!)
commit 1e7398a140f7a6 ("vhost: enable vhost without without MSI-X").
This isn't obvious to me.
As far as I can see, their only use is in net_init_tap_one():
if (tap->has_vhost ? tap->vhost :
vhostfdname || (tap->has_vhostforce && tap->vhostforce)) {
Can you take this apart for me?
Prior 1e7398a140f7a6, to enable vhost for some specific kind of guests
(that don't have MSI-X support), you should hav set vhostforce=on
(with vhost=on or unset).
Since 1e7398a140f7a6, guest type doesn't matter, all guests are equal
for vhost-enabling options logic.
So we simply have redundant options:
vhost=on / vhost=off : vhostforce ignored, doesn't make sense
vhost unset : vhostforce counts, enabling vhost
So you may enable vhost several ways:
- vhost=on
- vhostforce=on
- vhost=on + vhostforce=on
- and even vhost=on + vhostforce=off
- they are all equal.
So @vhostforce doesn't quite duplicate @vhost: if they conflict, @vhost
silently takes precedence.
Right. My description was too simplified, I'll update and resend, thanks!
Let's finally deprecate it.
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
docs/about/deprecated.rst | 7 +++++++
qapi/net.json | 6 +++++-
2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/docs/about/deprecated.rst b/docs/about/deprecated.rst
index d50645a071..d14cb37480 100644
--- a/docs/about/deprecated.rst
+++ b/docs/about/deprecated.rst
@@ -516,6 +516,13 @@ Stream ``reconnect`` (since 9.2)
The ``reconnect`` option only allows specifying second granularity timeouts,
which is not enough for all types of use cases, use ``reconnect-ms`` instead.
+TAP ``vhostforce`` (since 10.2)
+^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+
+The ``vhostforce`` option just duplicates the main ``vhost`` option.
+Use ``vhost`` alone.
Would "Use instead ``vhost`` instead" be clearer?
I meant, that user should not use vhost=on + vhostforce=on anymore.
My be just "Use ``vhost``", without "alone"/"instead"?
Suggest
The ``vhostforce`` option is redundant with the ``vhost`` option.
If they conflict, ``vhost`` takes precedence. Just use ``vhost``.
Thanks!
[...]
--
Best regards,
Vladimir
