From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf0-f51.google.com (mail-lf0-f51.google.com [209.85.215.51]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFB5047CE for ; Fri, 15 Jul 2016 11:14:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-lf0-f51.google.com with SMTP id b199so83347471lfe.0 for ; Fri, 15 Jul 2016 02:14:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=TPIIqVE8rPY/OBOp7JAnHXgBdAtxAqk4idVq7Q7vxqg=; b=Z2Zkv+VQbZ7D1SFviGzkL1vWzAZkZ9lPauyD440FE6+Ui+KbQhVtT5xSISEtyM1pUZ pNS4Wb4lYb6JGp0ZDvwBr59HcfTQbghp4TrdV6+Q+A7N/v6xrUbjXs7v4hxGUjuypf8j D/P+LicUQQ5NuLdZfzEAn/d1WnT3BlJZy9QP9vD7FOayxd24OhMmw2M2Mr/unlCUTxxv YOj+liJhSbotO3PKUp49YA5KUZky8NbbejZ6GATOge2IW8N2cLNICgPuISKkgmAzxo9C a44er0IYs5yal1ndaTorrjRMow7AwkV4wg8YGCOIH9yN1Bu5BXtvshyu/UTZdFM81LY7 8qGg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=TPIIqVE8rPY/OBOp7JAnHXgBdAtxAqk4idVq7Q7vxqg=; b=VuMNK+v/dSYRHZgLwpd2R9PFSkadEKZfJDs555vwfXisllOBmgpzUm9IhugrOvJO3l K1MD9qEnwqa7iZQLoyGXmWolUTm6Zv8bsoHpRWEMv05bA/uqAoxLAKP80KB9zpLLgIiH mlEqQqLy3sx+zpdEbRqSskXH9zAd3aPphZpBoZF6Bk9D1hkQvfXNezX5YxrgFpCaa7lT +BroMVX34D3j2TxGuRjQT5Yi+4cOLp+twINsT4hKq3unAC6DiTlOeXbckdo4J4pLQiPg cZ2s1D+lNJjnIqoCWvsXjxB4YxAdFVapFLypINDZ47911ba68U3RvKq5rSZ7Y72hj2cM /LRA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKCBe4fwqTPEDSflm3TiNwgD13HoWnrfj1S54AhMmnrN/avfaMJOS9/gLVOkCo/V7Kp X-Received: by 10.25.37.200 with SMTP id l191mr9909585lfl.70.1468574094616; Fri, 15 Jul 2016 02:14:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xps13.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net. [77.134.203.184]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 90sm1730389lfw.30.2016.07.15.02.14.53 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 15 Jul 2016 02:14:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Yuanhan Liu Cc: dev@dpdk.org, "Loftus, Ciara" , Huawei Xie , "Tan, Jianfeng" , "Wang, Zhihong" , "Hu, Jiayu" , Tetsuya Mukawa Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 11:14:52 +0200 Message-ID: <2777339.7FLUWNrt8N@xps13> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.5.4-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20160715084208.GF5146@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> References: <20160711035955.GA18850@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <20160715084208.GF5146@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] remove vhost-cuse X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 09:14:55 -0000 2016-07-15 16:42, Yuanhan Liu: > You see that no body cares it :) > > So I will make a patch to mark vhost-cuse as deprecated shortly. > Thomas, works to you? Perfect. Thanks Yuanhan > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 11:59:55AM +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote: > > It's something echoed around in my mind for a long while, and here I'm > > gonna make it public: a proposal to remove vhost-cuse. > > > > Vhost-cuse was invented before vhost-user exist. The both are actually > > doing the same thing: a vhost-net implementation in user space. But they > > are not exactly the same thing. > > > > Firstly, vhost-cuse is harder for use; no one seems to care it, either. > > Furthermore, since v2.1, a large majority of development effort has gone > > to vhost-user. For example, we extended the vhost-user spec to add the > > multiple queue support. We also added the vhost-user live migration at > > v16.04 and the latest one, vhost-user reconnect that allows vhost app > > restart without restarting the guest. Both of them are very important > > features for product usage and none of them works for vhost-cuse. > > > > You now see that the difference between vhost-user and vhost-cuse is > > big (and will be bigger and bigger as time moves forward), that you > > should never use vhost-cuse, that we should drop it completely. > > > > The remove would also result to a much cleaner code base, allowing us > > to do all kinds of extending easier. > > > > A talk with Huawei offline showed that he backs this proposal. I was > > also told by Ciara that she actually had the same idea: she has already > > cooked a patch to remove vhost-cuse support from OVS: > > > > http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/dev/2016-July/074696.html > > > > So I'm proposing to mark vhost-cuse as deprecated in this release and > > remove it completely at the next release (v16.11). > > > > Comments/thoughts, or objections? > > > > --yliu