From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FA3511DE for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 05:57:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 10 Jul 2016 20:57:34 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,344,1464678000"; d="scan'208";a="1019201038" Received: from yliu-dev.sh.intel.com (HELO yliu-dev) ([10.239.67.162]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 10 Jul 2016 20:57:32 -0700 Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 11:59:55 +0800 From: Yuanhan Liu To: dev@dpdk.org Cc: Thomas Monjalon , "Loftus, Ciara" , Huawei Xie , "Tan, Jianfeng" , "Wang, Zhihong" , "Hu, Jiayu" , Tetsuya Mukawa Message-ID: <20160711035955.GA18850@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Subject: [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: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 03:57:35 -0000 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