From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Or Gerlitz Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] tun: export underlying socket Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 11:17:14 +0300 Message-ID: <4AADFC0A.30305@voltaire.com> References: <20090910125929.GA32593@redhat.com> <15ddcffd0909140107m4d94f5abh5405074b654bd15d@mail.gmail.com> <20090914080923.GC14030@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Return-path: Received: from fwil.voltaire.com ([193.47.165.2]:16125 "EHLO exil.voltaire.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752996AbZINIR1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Sep 2009 04:17:27 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090914080923.GC14030@redhat.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 11:07:25AM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote: > >> vhost injects packets into physical device, what is the use case of vhost injecting packets into the host network stack? >> > The case where the user requires bridging, typically. > So you want to support a scheme where someone wants to attach vhost to a bridge? why not just telling these users to just set their vhost on top of veth couple, such that one veth device is added to a bridge as interface and a vhost instance is tied to the other veth device? Or.