On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 04:19:44PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 11:05:36AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 02:51:20PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > The broadening of vhost-user support is useful with that in much the > > > same way I imagine. > > > > vhost user has more of an impact but is also a bigger maintainance > > burden as clients are packaged, can be restarted etc individually. > > It feels like we're having/accepted that cost already though since > vhostuser exists today & has been expanding to cover more backends. > > Regards, > Daniel
What I am trying to say is that we could eaily add support for extensions just for in-tree code since these don't create an API that needs to be maintained. So e.g. we do not need feature negotiation. But yes, this could be an extension of vhost-user in some way. > -- > |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| > |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| > |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
