From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A78F0CA9ECB for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 15:23:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 736F120873 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 15:23:48 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=hostfission.com header.i=@hostfission.com header.b="Yrnbyzry" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 736F120873 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=reject dis=none) header.from=hostfission.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:51490 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iQCIc-000494-50 for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 11:23:46 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:55823) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iQCH0-0002V1-RC for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 11:22:07 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iQCGz-0007DC-Oo for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 11:22:06 -0400 Received: from mail1.hostfission.com ([139.99.139.48]:58858) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iQCGg-0006x7-8P for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 11:22:05 -0400 Received: from www1.hostfission.com (www1.hostfission.com [139.99.139.52]) by mail1.hostfission.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 713374BAD9; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 02:21:44 +1100 (AEDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=hostfission.com; s=mail; t=1572535304; bh=OUPftAVpTYbpHsLLd1SXCi5AYLkCnRJQ4xHwimXggW4=; h=To:Subject:Date:From:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=YrnbyzryjDmAuPTOXizbc07KV4uk9Un/OvMjrt9ygud9wccAgWlg+FjB1Epw5WY4y bUIq6o3uPTA+6BPyCNGZdOJ3acqhsoABplmkWa0PcswUf8YSW0G2yLaNZrnDAnK06P xHZSVQ2p3FaxZBGbgBeiBrQPQBRKgmcdFR24PahM= Received: by www1.hostfission.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6A5BB80500; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 02:21:44 +1100 (AEDT) To: Peter Maydell Subject: Re: RFC: New device for zero-copy VM memory access X-PHP-Originating-Script: 0:rcube.php MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2019 02:21:44 +1100 From: geoff@hostfission.com Cc: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" , QEMU Developers In-Reply-To: References: <20191030185248.GC3114@work-vm> <88f1c3701740665b0ebe2f24c8ce7ade@hostfission.com> <20191031132443.GB3128@work-vm> Message-ID: X-Sender: geoff@hostfission.com User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.2.3 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 139.99.139.48 X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On 2019-11-01 01:52, Peter Maydell wrote: > On Thu, 31 Oct 2019 at 14:26, wrote: >> As the author of Looking Glass, I also have to consider the >> maintenance >> and the complexity of implementing the vhost protocol into the >> project. >> At this time a complete Porthole client can be implemented in 150 >> lines >> of C without external dependencies, and most of that is boilerplate >> socket code. This IMO is a major factor in deciding to avoid >> vhost-user. > > This is essentially a proposal that we should make our project and > code more complicated so that your project and code can be simpler. > I hope you can see why this isn't necessarily an argument that will > hold > very much weight for us :-) Certainly, I do which is why I am still going to see about using vhost, however, a device that uses vhost is likely more complex then the device as it stands right now and as such more maintenance would be involved on your end also. Or have I missed something in that vhost-user can be used directly as a device? > > thanks > -- PMM