On 05/17/2017 03:51 AM, Vasiliy Tolstov wrote: > 2017-05-17 4:25 GMT+03:00 Laine Stump <laine@xxxxxxxxx>: >> Oh, and I forgot to point out here (although I did in the original >> thread last fall) that a toplevel <link state='blah'/> historically only >> affects the state of the interface in the guest. If it began affecting >> the state of the tap device in the host as well, there would be >> unexpected (and undesireable) consequences. > > > So as i understand xml for this feature looks right. I found one minor > issue, and send v2 shortly, > but i want to know, does this will be accepted by upstream? > Well, *I* think I've given sufficient reasons for having the two link states controlled separately, but since Dan and Peter had questioned its usefulness, we should see whether or not I've swayed their opinions :-) (BTW, sorry about dropping / completely forgetting about my patch for this back in August - this could have been resolved much sooner if I was better about keeping track of open branches.) -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
