Re: [Spice-devel] [PATCH spice-protocol 1/2] Add support for a header without sub list.

[Yaniv Kaul]

On 12/29/2011 08:11 AM, Yonit Halperin wrote:
On 12/28/2011 10:04 PM, Yaniv Kaul wrote:
On 12/28/2011 07:14 PM, Yonit Halperin wrote:
Add SpiceDataHeaderNoSub.
Introduce capability SPICE_COMMON_CAP_HEADER_NO_SUB.
Introduce SPICE_MSG_LIST: the msg body is SpiceSubMessageList.
The advantage of using a header without sub list is to spare the 4
bytes that were sent
for a lot of messages without sublist.
Instead, messages that previously contained sub lists, will be split
to two msgs.
The first one will be SPICE_MSG_LIST, holding the sub list, and the
second will be the
main msg.
When most of the messages do not contain sub lists, the overhead of
the additional 10 bytes
for the header of SPICE_MSG_LIST is negligible.
---
spice/enums.h | 1 +
spice/protocol.h | 9 ++++++++-
2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/spice/enums.h b/spice/enums.h
index a587b00..0314f0b 100644
--- a/spice/enums.h
+++ b/spice/enums.h
@@ -344,6 +344,7 @@ enum {
SPICE_MSG_WAIT_FOR_CHANNELS,
SPICE_MSG_DISCONNECTING,
SPICE_MSG_NOTIFY,
+ SPICE_MSG_LIST,
};

enum {
diff --git a/spice/protocol.h b/spice/protocol.h
index ddfe84b..cbd8295 100644
--- a/spice/protocol.h
+++ b/spice/protocol.h
@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@

#define SPICE_MAGIC (*(uint32_t*)"REDQ")
#define SPICE_VERSION_MAJOR 2
-#define SPICE_VERSION_MINOR 1
+#define SPICE_VERSION_MINOR 2

if you are bumping the protocol version, why negotiate the capability?
Isn't it implicit (if I can do 2.2 or above, I will omit the sublist) ?
Conversely, if you do have the capability exchange, why bump the 
version?


// Encryption& Ticketing Parameters
#define SPICE_MAX_PASSWORD_LENGTH 60
@@ -55,6 +55,7 @@ enum {
SPICE_COMMON_CAP_PROTOCOL_AUTH_SELECTION,
SPICE_COMMON_CAP_AUTH_SPICE,
SPICE_COMMON_CAP_AUTH_SASL,
+ SPICE_COMMON_CAP_HEADER_NO_SUB,
};

typedef struct SPICE_ATTR_PACKED SpiceLinkMess {
@@ -89,6 +90,12 @@ typedef struct SPICE_ATTR_PACKED SpiceDataHeader {
uint32_t sub_list; //offset to SpiceSubMessageList[]
} SpiceDataHeader;

+typedef struct SPICE_ATTR_PACKED SpiceDataHeaderNoSub {
+ uint64_t serial;

Ah, if you could also get rid of the serial in the same sweep... More
useless bytes.
At least for some channels, it's completely useless. I suspect some do
use it, for no real reason, though.
They are used for real reason. For example, keeping the bitmaps cache 
consistent, when the guest have several monitors. It was also used in 
other channels for seamless migration, and we hope to have seamless 
migration back in the future. It is not used for messages from the 
client to the server. Even if we want to remove it, it will require 
different patches then those in this series.

I'm not suggesting eliminating the IDs, but I see little value in 
sending them for every message. If there are specific features which 
require them (I was not aware that they are needed for seamless 
migration), send them as part of the migration protocol.
Y.


Y.

+ uint16_t type;
+ uint32_t size;
+} SpiceDataHeaderNoSub;
+
typedef struct SPICE_ATTR_PACKED SpiceSubMessage {
uint16_t type;
uint32_t size;



_______________________________________________
Spice-devel mailing list
Spice-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel