For background I am trying to work around a ram slot limit imposed by the vhost-user protocol. We are having trouble reconciling the comment here: https://github.com/qemu/qemu/blob/master/hw/virtio/vhost-user.c#L333 that “For non-vring specific requests, like VHOST_USER_SET_MEM_TABLE., we just need to send it once the first time” and the high level implementation of memory hot-add, which calls set_mem_table every time a VM hot adds memory.
A few questions: 1. What exactly is the check `if (vhost_user_one_time_request(msg->hdr.request) && dev->vq_index != 0)` for? In the message for commit b931bfbf042983f311b3b09894d8030b2755a638, which introduced the check, I see it says “non-vring specific messages[, which should] be sent only once” and gives VHOST_USER_SET_MEM_TABLE as an example one such message. The `vhost_user_one_time_request()` call clearly checks whether this type of message is the kind of message is supposed to be sent once of which VHOST_USER_SET_MEM_TABLE is one. Why, then, does this commit add the check if `dev->vq_index != 0`? It seems like there is a latent assumption that after the first call dev->vq_index should be set to some value greater than one, however for many cases such as vhost-user-scsi devices we can see this is clearly not the case https://github.com/qemu/qemu/blob/master/hw/scsi/vhost-user-scsi.c#L95. Is this check then ‘broken’ for such devices? 2. If this check is indeed broken for such devices, and set_mem_table call is only supposed to be run once for such devices, is the ability to call it multiple times technically a bug for devices such as vhost-user-scsci devices? If so, this would imply that the existing ability to hot add memory to vhost-user-scsi devices is by extension technically a bug/unintended behavior. Is this the case? Thanks, Raphael
