From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LzZay-00088B-Ud
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:58:49 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LzZau-00081y-48
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:58:48 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=41119 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LzZat-00081p-Tw
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:58:43 -0400
Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]:9027)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
	(Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <paul@codesourcery.com>)
	id 1LzZat-0003SM-IO
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:58:43 -0400
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([65.74.133.4])
	by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <paul@codesourcery.com>) id 1LzZaq-0005LD-Hw
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:58:40 -0400
From: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 9/9] Introduce VLANClientState::cleanup()
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:58:37 +0100
References: <1239812969-8320-2-git-send-email-markmc@redhat.com>
	<49F9D3D8.3000704@us.ibm.com> <49F9D4A1.7070005@us.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <49F9D4A1.7070005@us.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200904301758.38231.paul@codesourcery.com>
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.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>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: Mark McLoughlin <markmc@redhat.com>, Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>, Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>

> Neither of these are very good options.  

Agreed. Bolting point-point requirements onto the vlan API seem like a really 
bad idea.

> No one has complained yet to 
> the best of my knowledge that you can't have more than one guest device
> on a vlan in KVM.  This is simply because no one ever does it :-)

I'm not so sure about that. I don't believe kvm is representative of qemu as a 
whole. My guess is your typical kvm user cares more about netwroking 
performance then they do about (for example) requiring root privileges to 
instantiate virtual machines.

That said, I guess vlan functionality can be punted to something like vde.

Paul