From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:38480)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rob@landley.net>) id 1QUNM9-00051D-Ah
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 08 Jun 2011 14:19:54 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rob@landley.net>) id 1QUNM7-0008R0-T4
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 08 Jun 2011 14:19:53 -0400
Received: from mail-yx0-f173.google.com ([209.85.213.173]:65018)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rob@landley.net>) id 1QUNM7-0008Qp-Lg
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 08 Jun 2011 14:19:51 -0400
Received: by yxj19 with SMTP id 19so418201yxj.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Wed, 08 Jun 2011 11:19:50 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4DEFBD34.1050507@landley.net>
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 13:19:32 -0500
From: Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <BANLkTinetbWq7xCVFHvYhL_kwc_-xuY+rg@mail.gmail.com>	<4DEFAAB8.4090000@redhat.com>	<6EA90C66-663E-40CA-8473-20164A7B54A1@web.de>
	<BANLkTi=BT=mWypNvmoSOPV_W1Pn8T-eEwg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=BT=mWypNvmoSOPV_W1Pn8T-eEwg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] inconsistency between device traversal in qdev and
 legacy
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: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>, =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= <andreas.faerber@web.de>, Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>, QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

On 06/08/2011 12:39 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 8 June 2011 18:37, Andreas Färber <andreas.faerber@web.de> wrote:
>> From Peter's description I believe this could be the root cause of Rob's
>> reversed -net /dev/ethX devices as well? That supposedly broke with 0.14. So
>> for setups earlier than 0.14 reversing would be a bugfix, but if people
>> adapted to 0.14 behavior changing it back would break things. Difficult
>> call.
> 
> OTOH if not many people complained about the 0.13->0.14 transition then
> presumably not very many will complain if we put it back? :-)
> 
> -- PMM

I suspect most people emulating boards only feed one interface to the
thing, so it probably doesn't come up much.

Either way, I have a workaround now, but consistency would be nice.

Rob