On Fri, 25 May 2012 15:14:39 +0200 Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Il 25/05/2012 15:07, Luiz Capitulino ha scritto: > > On Fri, 25 May 2012 14:59:25 +0200 > > Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> Il 25/05/2012 14:53, Luiz Capitulino ha scritto: > >>>>> I agree it would be nice to drop entirely but I don't feel happy doing > >>>>> that to users who might have QEMU buried in scripts somewhere. One > >>>>> day they upgrade packages and suddenly their stuff doesn't work > >>>>> anymore. > >>> This is very similar to kqemu and I don't think we regret having dropped it. > >> > >> It's not. kqemu was putting maintainance burden, the aim of this patch > >> is exactly to isolate the feature to command-line parsing and a magic > >> net client. If you don't use -net, the new code is absolutely dead, > >> unlike kqemu. > > > > Let me quote Stefan on this thread: > > > > """ > > The point of this patch series is to remove the special-case net.c code > > for the legacy "vlan" feature. Today's code makes it harder to > > implement a clean QOM model and is a burden for the net subsystem in > > general > > """ > > Still not sure what you mean... I meant it's a similar case. kqemu was a special case and maintenance burden. We've dropped it and didn't regret. What's stopping us from doing the same thing with vlans? > we removed kqemu and didn't give an > alternative. This time we are providing an alternative. Alternatives already exist, we don't have to provide them. -- 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
