[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: |
Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:50:18 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) |
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.
> I don't have much time, but I'll help anybody who wants to do that.
>
> -- Jamie
- 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 <=
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: Release plan for 0.12.0, Sridhar Samudrala, 2009/10/14
- 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