From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paolo Bonzini Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 00/16] net: hub-based networking Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 15:37:15 +0200 Message-ID: <4FBF8B0B.1090601@redhat.com> References: <1337882362-20100-1-git-send-email-zwu.kernel@gmail.com> <20120524175321.31254444@doriath.home> <20120525100753.GD30110@stefanha-thinkpad.localdomain> <20120525095313.116f680f@doriath.home> <4FBF822D.9090707@redhat.com> <20120525100746.51d7bf28@doriath.home> <4FBF85BF.6050403@redhat.com> <20120525101830.1793d300@doriath.home> <4FBF86E0.7070908@redhat.com> <20120525103004.23cfc4f4@doriath.home> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi , Markus Armbruster , Stefan Hajnoczi , kvm@vger.kernel.org, jan.kiszka@siemens.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, zwu.kernel@gmail.com, wuzhy@linux.vnet.ibm.com To: Luiz Capitulino Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:11086 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753050Ab2EYNhZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 May 2012 09:37:25 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20120525103004.23cfc4f4@doriath.home> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Il 25/05/2012 15:30, Luiz Capitulino ha scritto: > On Fri, 25 May 2012 15:19:28 +0200 > Paolo Bonzini wrote: > >> Il 25/05/2012 15:18, Luiz Capitulino ha scritto: >>>>> >>>>> Still not sure what you mean... >>> I meant it's a similar case. kqemu was a special case and maintenance burden. >>> We've dropped it and didn't regret. What's stopping us from doing the same >>> thing with vlans? >> >> That we have an alternative, and that -net dump is actually useful. > > I haven't reviewed the series yet, but -net dump can work without this, > can't it? -net dump requires putting a back-end, a front-end and the dump client in the same VLAN. So it is quite useless without this. > It's always possible to have alternatives in qemu, the point is how far > we're going on bloating it. > >>>>> we removed kqemu and didn't give an >>>>> alternative. This time we are providing an alternative. >>> Alternatives already exist, we don't have to provide them. >> >> Alternatives that require you to have root privileges (anything >> involving libvirt or iptables) are not really alternatives. > > It seems to me that vde doesn't require root, but even if it does, moving > this outside of qemu would also be feasible. Yeah, VDE probably includes something like an hub. But then we could drop even "-net socket", "-net udp", "-net dump", and only leave in vde+tap+slirp. Or even move slirp into VDE. :) That's a very different thing. Do distributions package VDE at all? Paolo