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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
