On 2012-05-24 11:12, Zhi Yong Wu wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 9:30 PM, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 2012-05-24 09:27, Zhi Yong Wu wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 2012-05-23 23:42, Zhi Yong Wu wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 11:41 PM, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2012-05-23 12:14, zwu.kernel@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>>>> From: Zhi Yong Wu <wuzhy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Zhi Yong Wu <wuzhy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> net.c | 1 -
>>>>>>> 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/net.c b/net.c
>>>>>>> index 61dc28d..8c8e703 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/net.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/net.c
>>>>>>> @@ -1079,7 +1079,6 @@ void do_info_network(Monitor *mon)
>>>>>>> NetClientState *nc, *peer;
>>>>>>> net_client_type type;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - monitor_printf(mon, "Devices not on any VLAN:\n");
>>>>>>> QTAILQ_FOREACH(nc, &net_clients, next) {
>>>>>>> peer = nc->peer;
>>>>>>> type = nc->info->type;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This looks suspicious - or the patch description is improvable. This is
>>>>>> really just about removing that headline? And what about the indention
>>>>>> of the lines printed afterward?
>>>>> As you have known, vlan concept is replaced with hub. So i think that
>>>>> it is more reasonable to remove this in monitor.
>>>>
>>>> That is true. But the output formatting is still improvable.
>>> Please see below.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It also leads me to the question how hub-based networks will be
>>>>>> visualized on "info network", specifically when there are multiple hubs.
>>>>>> Can you provide some more complex example of an info network output?
>>>>>
>>>>> (qemu) info network
>>>>> virtio-net-pci.0: type=nic,model=virtio-net-pci,macaddr=52:54:00:12:34:56
>>>>> \ hub0port0: type=(null),
>>>>> virtio-net-pci.1: type=nic,model=virtio-net-pci,macaddr=52:54:00:12:34:57
>>>>> \ hub1port0: type=(null),
>>>>> hub 1
>>>>> port 1 peer user.1
>>>>> port 0 peer virtio-net-pci.1
>>>>> hub 0
>>>>> port 1 peer user.0
>>>>> port 0 peer virtio-net-pci.0
>>>>
>>>> What about a layout like this:
>>>>
>>>> hub.0
>>>> \ virtio-net-pci.0: ...
>>>> \ virtio-net-pci.1: ...
>>>> \ user.0: ...
>>>> hub.1
>>>> \ e1000.0: ...
>>>> e1000.1: ...
>>>> \ user.1: ...
>>> It is completely wrong.
>>
>> (Note: my example is not a different representation of yours, it's a
>> different setup).
> Sorry, i don't understand what the benefit for your layout is? And we
To see at one glance which peers are connected via a hub with eachother.
> can not see which hub port peers with which NIC driver or network
> backend.
What is the benefit of printing the port number? Is it part of the
user-visible interface? Does the port number make any difference for the
attached peer?
Jan
--
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
--
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
