From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:56129) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SbPDA-00056m-S0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 00:48:14 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SbPD8-0008Jd-W6 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 00:48:12 -0400 Received: from mail-pz0-f45.google.com ([209.85.210.45]:34193) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SbPD8-0008JK-Q3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 00:48:10 -0400 Received: by dadv2 with SMTP id v2so5770942dad.4 for ; Sun, 03 Jun 2012 21:48:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4FCC3E00.7080004@codemonkey.ws> Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 12:48:00 +0800 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4FBF822D.9090707@redhat.com> <20120525100746.51d7bf28@doriath.home> <4FBF85BF.6050403@redhat.com> <20120525101830.1793d300@doriath.home> <4FBF86E0.7070908@redhat.com> <20120525103004.23cfc4f4@doriath.home> <4FBF8B0B.1090601@redhat.com> <20120525104322.2da0b0ba@doriath.home> <4FBF8D70.1030304@redhat.com> <20120525105628.1a1f3f8d@doriath.home> <20120528111704.GD30438@stefanha-thinkpad.localdomain> <20120528102551.2ffce963@doriath.home> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed 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: Markus Armbruster Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi , kvm@vger.kernel.org, jan.kiszka@siemens.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Luiz Capitulino , zwu.kernel@gmail.com, wuzhy@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Stefan Hajnoczi , Paolo Bonzini On 05/29/2012 04:14 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Luiz Capitulino writes: > >> On Mon, 28 May 2012 12:17:04 +0100 >> Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: >> >>> What we need to decide is whether it's okay to drop QEMU "VLANs" >>> completely and change dump command-line syntax? >> >> I'd vote for dropping it. >> >>> I think vlan-hub doesn't hurt anyone because the code has been isolated >>> and we keep backwards compatibility. So I'd personally still go the >>> vlan-hub route for QEMU 1.x. >> >> Just to make it clear: I'm not against this series. I'm against having >> the functionality in qemu. If we want to keep the functionality, then I >> completely agree that this series is the way to go. > > I agree with Luiz: if we want to reimplement that much of networking > within QEMU, this series does it in a much better way than VLANs, but > I'd rather not do it at all. > > Just advice, not a strong objection. Doesn't the same logic apply to reimplementing file systems? Shouldn't we drop qcow3 in favor of using btrfs? It's easy to make the NIH argument when it's a feature you don't care about. A lot of people use vlans. It's the only way -net socket is useful too. Just because most KVM/libvirt users don't doesn't mean they aren't an important feature to preserve. I would strongly nack any attempt to remove vlans w/o providing some mechanism for backwards compatibility which is exactly what this patch series does. Regards, Anthony Liguori > > [...] > > >