From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EMXzF-0005KT-KN for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 03 Oct 2005 17:36:42 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EMXz2-00059v-HJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 03 Oct 2005 17:36:29 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EMXz2-00054o-7w for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 03 Oct 2005 17:36:28 -0400 Received: from [128.8.10.163] (helo=po1.wam.umd.edu) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1EMXz2-0007Pd-4T for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 03 Oct 2005 17:36:28 -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 j93LaQCp028794 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2005 17:36:27 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 17:36:25 -0400 From: "Jim C. Brown" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] tun/tap networking: patch for existing tun Message-ID: <20051003213625.GA30741@jbrown.mylinuxbox.org> References: <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> <20051003151425.GC27327@jbrown.mylinuxbox.org> <43417879.5020106@bellard.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <43417879.5020106@bellard.org> 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 08:29:13PM +0200, Fabrice Bellard wrote: > Hi, > > Sorry for the lack of comment. I mostly use the 'user-net' networking so > I never bothered much about TUN/TAP. > > What I can say is that the '-net xxx' option will be implemented to > solve the existing issues. My only concern is about ensuring backward > compatibility (if no one needs it then it is much simpler). > Doubtful. Not many use tundev.c or tapdev.c VDE is more popular but fixing it for a new syntax is a trivial change. (Probably a one liner, even.) AFAIK nothing else will care. > Another point is that I am very tempted to integrate a feature to > connect several qemu without needing an external program such as VDE. I > am thinking of it because it would be relatively easy to add to the > existing user-net code (user-net already simulates a kind of LAN). > How would the syntax for this work? > Fabrice. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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.