From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Release plan for 0.12.0
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:50:18 +0200
Message-ID: <20091014155018.GB30179@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>
	<20091014142453.GA29798@redhat.com>
	<20091014151917.GB17062@shareable.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>, kvm-devel <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>,
	Jens Osterkamp <jens@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Return-path: <qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20091014151917.GB17062@shareable.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org
Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

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