From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1N6EOU-00006F-2y for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:17:42 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1N6EOO-0008Oo-TZ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:17:40 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=55331 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1N6EOO-0008O5-11 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:17:36 -0500 Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]:14882) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1N6EON-0001yl-PP for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:17:35 -0500 Received: from mail2.shareable.org ([80.68.89.115]) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1N6EON-0006kV-2V for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:17:35 -0500 Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 02:17:34 +0000 From: Jamie Lokier Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/4] net-bridge: rootless bridge support for qemu Message-ID: <20091106021734.GL21630@shareable.org> References: <1257294485-27015-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com> <4AF2E247.3090409@redhat.com> <4AF2E7CE.8010506@us.ibm.com> <4AF2EB17.8090202@redhat.com> <4AF2F7E9.50300@us.ibm.com> <4AF2FA2A.4060500@redhat.com> <4AF2FC88.5030303@us.ibm.com> <4AF2FE57.2080700@redhat.com> <4AF30255.2020303@us.ibm.com> <4AF31720.4010303@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4AF31720.4010303@redhat.com> List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Avi Kivity Cc: Mark McLoughlin , Anthony Liguori , Arnd Bergmann , Juan Quintela , Dustin Kirkland , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Michael Tsirkin Avi Kivity wrote: > On 11/05/2009 06:50 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >>I'm worrying that we're transforming one problem into two different > >>ones. Expanding the scope of qemu, and making it more difficult to > >>use advanced networking functionality. > > > > > >Do you object to the idea of having qemu call to a helper program > >directly or to the idea of having the helper program in qemu at all? > > Both, the former much less that the latter. > > I dislike helper programs, I find them inefficient especially at runtime > as the penalties of fork() on a memory hog (esp. one that uses mmu > notifiers like qemu+kvm) are considerable. Note that system() does not used fork() these days. It should not be affected by process size. -- Jamie