[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: Release plan for 0.12.0
From: |
Sridhar Samudrala |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: Release plan for 0.12.0 |
Date: |
Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:10:00 -0700 |
On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 17:50 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 04:19:17PM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> > Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 09:17:15AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> > > > Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > >> Looks like Or has abandoned it. I have an updated version which works
> > > >> with new APIs, etc. Let me post it and we'll go from there.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>> I'm generally inclined to oppose the functionality as I don't think
> > > >>> it offers any advantages over the existing backends.
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> I patch it in and use it all the time. It's much easier to setup
> > > >> on a random machine than a bridged config.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Having two things that do the same thing is just going to lead to user
> > > > confusion.
> > >
> > > They do not do the same thing. With raw socket you can use windows
> > > update without a bridge in the host, with tap you can't.
> >
> > On the other hand, with raw socket, guest Windows can't access files
> > on the host's Samba share can it? So it's not that useful even for
> > Windows guests.
>
> I guess this depends on whether you use the same host for samba :)
>
> > > > If the problem is tap is too hard to setup, we should try to
> > > > simplify tap configuration.
> > >
> > > The problem is bridge is too hard to setup.
> > > Simplifying that is a good idea, but outside the scope
> > > of the qemu project.
> >
> > I venture it's important enough for qemu that it's worth working on
> > that. Something that looks like the raw socket but behaves like an
> > automatically instantiated bridge attached to the bound interface
> > would be a useful interface.
>
> I agree, that would be good to have.
Can't we bind the raw socket to the tap interface instead of the
physical interface and allow the bridge config to work.
Thanks
Sridhar
>
> > I don't have much time, but I'll help anybody who wants to do that.
> >
> > -- Jamie
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
> the body of a message to address@hidden
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Release plan for 0.12.0, (continued)
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Release plan for 0.12.0, Laurent Vivier, 2009/10/02
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Release plan for 0.12.0, TAKEDA, toshiya, 2009/10/03
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Release plan for 0.12.0, Jens Osterkamp, 2009/10/08
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Release plan for 0.12.0, Anthony Liguori, 2009/10/08
- [Qemu-devel] Re: Release plan for 0.12.0, Michael S. Tsirkin, 2009/10/14
- [Qemu-devel] Re: Release plan for 0.12.0, Anthony Liguori, 2009/10/14
- [Qemu-devel] Re: Release plan for 0.12.0, Michael S. Tsirkin, 2009/10/14
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: Release plan for 0.12.0, Jamie Lokier, 2009/10/14
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: Release plan for 0.12.0, Michael S. Tsirkin, 2009/10/14
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: Release plan for 0.12.0,
Sridhar Samudrala <=
- Raw vs. tap (was: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: Release plan for 0.12.0), Anthony Liguori, 2009/10/14
- Re: Raw vs. tap (was: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: Release plan for 0.12.0), Mark McLoughlin, 2009/10/15
- Re: Raw vs. tap (was: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: Release plan for 0.12.0), Michael S. Tsirkin, 2009/10/15
- [Qemu-devel] Re: Raw vs. tap, Anthony Liguori, 2009/10/15
- [Qemu-devel] Re: Raw vs. tap, Michael S. Tsirkin, 2009/10/15
- [Qemu-devel] Re: Raw vs. tap, Anthony Liguori, 2009/10/15
- [Qemu-devel] Re: Raw vs. tap, Michael S. Tsirkin, 2009/10/15
- [Qemu-devel] Re: Raw vs. tap, Anthony Liguori, 2009/10/15
- [Qemu-devel] Re: Raw vs. tap, Michael S. Tsirkin, 2009/10/15
- [Qemu-devel] Re: Raw vs. tap, Michael S. Tsirkin, 2009/10/18