From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:47231) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SXuPN-0007Wy-Jk for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 25 May 2012 09:18:27 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SXuPL-0001Yl-IV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 25 May 2012 09:18:21 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:1026) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SXuPL-0001YU-AK for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 25 May 2012 09:18:19 -0400 Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 10:18:30 -0300 From: Luiz Capitulino Message-ID: <20120525101830.1793d300@doriath.home> In-Reply-To: <4FBF85BF.6050403@redhat.com> References: <1337882362-20100-1-git-send-email-zwu.kernel@gmail.com> <20120524175321.31254444@doriath.home> <20120525100753.GD30110@stefanha-thinkpad.localdomain> <20120525095313.116f680f@doriath.home> <4FBF822D.9090707@redhat.com> <20120525100746.51d7bf28@doriath.home> <4FBF85BF.6050403@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 00/16] net: hub-based networking List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi , kvm@vger.kernel.org, Stefan Hajnoczi , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Markus Armbruster , zwu.kernel@gmail.com, wuzhy@linux.vnet.ibm.com, jan.kiszka@siemens.com On Fri, 25 May 2012 15:14:39 +0200 Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 25/05/2012 15:07, Luiz Capitulino ha scritto: > > On Fri, 25 May 2012 14:59:25 +0200 > > Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > >> Il 25/05/2012 14:53, Luiz Capitulino ha scritto: > >>>>> I agree it would be nice to drop entirely but I don't feel happy doing > >>>>> that to users who might have QEMU buried in scripts somewhere. One > >>>>> day they upgrade packages and suddenly their stuff doesn't work > >>>>> anymore. > >>> This is very similar to kqemu and I don't think we regret having dropped it. > >> > >> It's not. kqemu was putting maintainance burden, the aim of this patch > >> is exactly to isolate the feature to command-line parsing and a magic > >> net client. If you don't use -net, the new code is absolutely dead, > >> unlike kqemu. > > > > Let me quote Stefan on this thread: > > > > """ > > The point of this patch series is to remove the special-case net.c code > > for the legacy "vlan" feature. Today's code makes it harder to > > implement a clean QOM model and is a burden for the net subsystem in > > general > > """ > > Still not sure what you mean... I meant it's a similar case. kqemu was a special case and maintenance burden. We've dropped it and didn't regret. What's stopping us from doing the same thing with vlans? > we removed kqemu and didn't give an > alternative. This time we are providing an alternative. Alternatives already exist, we don't have to provide them.