Re: Re: Release plan for 0.12.0

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 04:19:17PM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> On the other hand, with raw socket, guest Windows can't access files
> on the host's Samba share can it?  So it's not that useful even for
> Windows guests.

I guess this depends on whether you use the same host for samba :)

> > > 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.
> 
> I venture it's important enough for qemu that it's worth working on
> that.  Something that looks like the raw socket but behaves like an
> automatically instantiated bridge attached to the bound interface
> would be a useful interface.

I agree, that would be good to have.

> I don't have much time, but I'll help anybody who wants to do that.
> 
> -- Jamie