[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: |
Michael S. Tsirkin |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: Release plan for 0.12.0 |
Date: |
Thu, 15 Oct 2009 09:51:48 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) |
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 02:10:00PM -0700, Sridhar Samudrala wrote:
> 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.
We can, kind of (e.g. with veth) but what's the point then?
> 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
- Raw vs. tap (was: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: Release plan for 0.12.0), (continued)
- 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
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: Release plan for 0.12.0,
Michael S. Tsirkin <=
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Release plan for 0.12.0, Arnd Bergmann, 2009/10/14
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Release plan for 0.12.0, Anthony Liguori, 2009/10/14
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Release plan for 0.12.0, Michael S. Tsirkin, 2009/10/14
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Release plan for 0.12.0, Michael S. Tsirkin, 2009/10/14