From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: Release plan for 0.12.0 Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:24:54 +0200 Message-ID: <20091014142453.GA29798@redhat.com> References: <4AC29E4D.80707@us.ibm.com> <200910081555.40897.jens@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4ACDF550.1020502@codemonkey.ws> <20091014132154.GA29037@redhat.com> <4AD5DD6B.2030703@codemonkey.ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jens Osterkamp , Anthony Liguori , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm-devel , Paul Brook To: Anthony Liguori Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:25309 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756617AbZJNO1s (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:27:48 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4AD5DD6B.2030703@codemonkey.ws> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 09:17:15AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> Looks like Or has abandoned it. I have an updated version which works >> with new APIs, etc. Let me post it and we'll go from there. >> >> >>> I'm generally inclined to oppose the functionality as I don't think >>> it offers any advantages over the existing backends. >>> >> >> I patch it in and use it all the time. It's much easier to setup >> on a random machine than a bridged config. >> > > Having two things that do the same thing is just going to lead to user > confusion. They do not do the same thing. With raw socket you can use windows update without a bridge in the host, with tap you can't. > If the problem is tap is too hard to setup, we should try to > simplify tap configuration. The problem is bridge is too hard to setup. Simplifying that is a good idea, but outside the scope of the qemu project. > Regards, > > Anthony Liguori >