From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] remove vhost-cuse
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 11:14:52 +0200
Message-ID: <2777339.7FLUWNrt8N@xps13>
References: <20160711035955.GA18850@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
 <20160715084208.GF5146@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, "Loftus, Ciara" <ciara.loftus@intel.com>,
 Huawei Xie <huawei.xie@intel.com>, "Tan, Jianfeng" <jianfeng.tan@intel.com>,
 "Wang, Zhihong" <zhihong.wang@intel.com>, "Hu, Jiayu" <jiayu.hu@intel.com>,
 Tetsuya Mukawa <mukawa@igel.co.jp>
To: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
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 <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 15 Jul 2016 11:14:54 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-lf0-f51.google.com with SMTP id b199so83347471lfe.0
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 15 Jul 2016 02:14:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20160715084208.GF5146@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

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