From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MyLEX-0007Oe-HZ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 15 Oct 2009 03:58:49 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MyLES-0007Lx-PF
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 15 Oct 2009 03:58:48 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=58417 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MyLES-0007Ls-Ga
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 15 Oct 2009 03:58:44 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:27108)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1MyLES-0005jg-00
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 15 Oct 2009 03:58:44 -0400
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 09:56:12 +0200
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Raw vs. tap (was: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: Release plan for 0.12.0)
Message-ID: <20091015075612.GB32003@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>
	<20091014142453.GA29798@redhat.com>
	<20091014151917.GB17062@shareable.org>
	<20091014155018.GB30179@redhat.com>
	<1255554600.20366.9.camel@w-sridhar.beaverton.ibm.com>
	<4AD65684.3010403@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4AD65684.3010403@codemonkey.ws>
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: kvm-devel <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>, Jens Osterkamp <jens@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Sridhar Samudrala <sri@us.ibm.com>

On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 05:53:56PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> I would be much more inclined to consider  
> taking raw and improving the performance long term if guest<->host  
> networking worked.  This appears to be a fundamental limitation though  
> and I think it's something that will forever plague users if we include  
> this feature.

In fact, I think it's fixable with a raw socket bound to a macvlan.
Would that be enough?

-- 
MST