* ge...@hostfission.com (ge...@hostfission.com) wrote: > > > On 2019-11-01 01:52, Peter Maydell wrote: > > On Thu, 31 Oct 2019 at 14:26, <ge...@hostfission.com> 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?
The basic vhost-user stuff isn't actually that hard; if you aren't actually shuffling commands over the queues you should find it pretty simple - so I think your assumption about it being simpler if you avoid it might be wrong. It might be easier if you use it! Dave > > > > thanks > > -- PMM -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
