From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1My4p7-0000Vh-RY
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:27:30 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1My4p2-0000Si-GB
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:27:28 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=52772 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1My4p0-0000SC-9r
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:27:23 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:56584)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1My4oz-0001pV-2Z
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:27:21 -0400
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:24:54 +0200
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20091014142453.GA29798@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4AD5DD6B.2030703@codemonkey.ws>
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: Release plan for 0.12.0
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: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>, Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm-devel <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, Jens Osterkamp <jens@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

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.

> 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.


> Regards,
>
> Anthony Liguori
>