On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 05:20:13PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > > > > QEMU's defined the vhost-user ABI/API and delegated > > > > > impl to something else. > > > > The vhost ABI isn't easy to maintain at all though. So I would not > > > > commit to that lightly without a good reason. > > > > > > > > It will be way more painful if the ABI is dictated by a 3rd party > > > > library. > > > > > > Who should define it? > > > > No one. Put it in same source tree with QEMU and forget ABI stability > > issues. > > That doesn't work very well in practice as you have to make sure the > vTPM process that is running, provides exactly the same ABI as the QEMU > process that's connecting to it. You could have a single vTPM process > on the host serving many QEMU processes, each of which could be a > different QEMU version, due to upgraded RPMs/Debs. > > Regards, > Daniel
I might be wrong but last time I looked each QEMU instance had to use its own CUSE device. So the pain seems entirely self-inflicted, you could have a process per QEMU instance, start and stop it from within QEMU. > -- > |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| > |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| > |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
