From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EMRvT-0007MO-W7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 03 Oct 2005 11:08:24 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EMRvN-0007I2-St for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 03 Oct 2005 11:08:21 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EMRvN-0007HF-AR for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 03 Oct 2005 11:08:17 -0400 Received: from [128.8.10.163] (helo=po1.wam.umd.edu) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1EMRts-0000BS-PR for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 03 Oct 2005 11:06:44 -0400 Received: from jbrown.mylinuxbox.org (jma-box.student.umd.edu [129.2.253.219]) by po1.wam.umd.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j93F6gJP007928 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2005 11:06:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 11:06:37 -0400 From: "Jim C. Brown" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] tun/tap networking: patch for existing tun Message-ID: <20051003150637.GB27327@jbrown.mylinuxbox.org> References: <20050930230149.GA20433@jbrown.mylinuxbox.org> <433E44F9.8040501@eclis.ch> <20051001131215.GB28444@jbrown.mylinuxbox.org> <433EF5C4.2030801@eclis.ch> <433F92CB.1060600@eclis.ch> <43402ABC.3040805@us.ibm.com> <20051002193912.GB13825@jbrown.mylinuxbox.org> <434041CD.9080507@eclis.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 03:01:08PM +0200, Henrik Nordstrom wrote: > On Sun, 2 Oct 2005, Jean-Christian de Rivaz wrote: > >>In fact, if qemu supported both these things, then I don't see a reason > >>for > >>-tun-fd at all (except for something like VDE). > > > >Agree, and a -vde option will go forward in this direction. > > vde is not the only userspace switch available. Locking qemu to only vde > would be bad. I then much prefer not having the builtin vde option or even > the tun/tap open code and only keep -tun-fd. (from -tun-fd all the others > can be implemented by a wrapper opening the connections and handing them > over to QEMU) > Agreed. So "-net socket,fd=..." or at least -socket-fd (I think it should be made clear that qemu won't require tap fds, just datagram sockets.) > >To be clear, I don't propose to remove option at this point, but just to > >make qemu more easy to use for simple and most common setup. > > See the proposal from Fabrice some month ago on what the command line > parameters should look like. Very nice imho. And very easy to extend with > new modes (VDE, persistent TUN/TAP, whatever) without having to introduce > new confusing options. > Agreed. > Regards > Henrik > > > _______________________________________________ > Qemu-devel mailing list > Qemu-devel@nongnu.org > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel > -- Infinite complexity begets infinite beauty. Infinite precision begets infinite perfection.