From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LFVgP-0004Pc-2z
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2008 10:30:01 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LFVgO-0004PP-QR
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2008 10:30:00 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=37141 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LFVgO-0004PM-Jc
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2008 10:30:00 -0500
Received: from mail.sterilesecurity.com ([173.45.227.235]:49355)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <liraz@turnkeylinux.org>) id 1LFVgO-0006uy-AX
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2008 10:30:00 -0500
Message-ID: <49525575.2070605@turnkeylinux.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 17:29:57 +0200
From: Liraz Siri <liraz@turnkeylinux.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Merging improvements from VirtualBox OSE into qemu?
References: <49522F8D.4000203@turnkeylinux.org>
	<200812241336.01702.paul@codesourcery.com>
	<4952484F.6010406@turnkeylinux.org>
	<200812241502.04984.paul@codesourcery.com>
In-Reply-To: <200812241502.04984.paul@codesourcery.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
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: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Cc: turnkey-discuss@lists.turnkeylinux.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Paul Brook wrote:

> Well, I'm not a great fan of kqemu to start with. I suspect it may end up 
> being removed sooner rather than later.

Yeah, kqemu only seems to be useful for users that can't use KVM due to
lack of hardware support.

> Networking is not a qemu specific feature. The first thing you need to do is 
> convince the kernel folks that this is a useful feature, and get it 
> implemented there. Then we can make qemu use that interface.
> What you've described sounds a lot like the pcap interface, which has its own 
> set of problems.
> 
> If your main argument is "users are too dumb to configure a bridge" then 
> you're arguing from a fairly weak position. The answer tends to be that you 
> need to make your configuration tools suck less.

Good point.

Cheers,
Liraz