From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:49460)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1TEiWG-0002gp-I1
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:18:30 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1TEiW7-0003Zz-OH
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:18:24 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:25511)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1TEiW7-0003Y3-Gj
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:18:15 -0400
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 18:19:40 +0300
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20120920151940.GB14320@redhat.com>
References: <1347562697-15411-1-git-send-email-owasserm@redhat.com>
	<87r4pwzv9f.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
	<505B2E52.8010702@redhat.com> <505B3269.2040608@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <505B3269.2040608@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 0/3] nonblocking connect address
 handling cleanup
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, aliguori@us.ibm.com, akong@redhat.com, mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com, quintela@redhat.com, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Orit Wasserman <owasserm@redhat.com>, lcapitulino@redhat.com

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 05:12:41PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 20/09/2012 16:55, Orit Wasserman ha scritto:
> > > Almost there for connect.
> > > 
> > > I'm afraid we have a similar problem with listen: we bind only on the
> > > first address that works.  Shouldn't we bind all of them?
> > > 
> > > http://www.akkadia.org/drepper/userapi-ipv6.html
> > 
> > yes listen should be fixed but lets do it in a separate patch set.
> 
> It's also much more complicated with the current API because you need an
> array of file descriptors rather than just one.
> 
> Paolo

As a quick hack we can listen on ipv6 only
which is a superset.
I agree address independence would be better.

-- 
MST