From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:40763)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <peter.maydell@linaro.org>) id 1QUMjU-0002MT-09
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 08 Jun 2011 13:39:57 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <peter.maydell@linaro.org>) id 1QUMjS-0001cI-Ic
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 08 Jun 2011 13:39:55 -0400
Received: from mail-px0-f174.google.com ([209.85.212.174]:44226)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <peter.maydell@linaro.org>) id 1QUMjR-0001c0-Tl
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 08 Jun 2011 13:39:54 -0400
Received: by pxi15 with SMTP id 15so540658pxi.33
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Wed, 08 Jun 2011 10:39:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6EA90C66-663E-40CA-8473-20164A7B54A1@web.de>
References: <BANLkTinetbWq7xCVFHvYhL_kwc_-xuY+rg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DEFAAB8.4090000@redhat.com>
	<6EA90C66-663E-40CA-8473-20164A7B54A1@web.de>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 18:39:52 +0100
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=BT=mWypNvmoSOPV_W1Pn8T-eEwg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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: =?UTF-8?Q?Andreas_F=C3=A4rber?= <andreas.faerber@web.de>
Cc: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>, Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>, QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

On 8 June 2011 18:37, Andreas F=C3=A4rber <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