On 05/29/2012 04:14 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Luiz Capitulino<lcapitulino@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
On Mon, 28 May 2012 12:17:04 +0100
Stefan Hajnoczi<stefanha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What we need to decide is whether it's okay to drop QEMU "VLANs"
completely and change dump command-line syntax?
I'd vote for dropping it.
I think vlan-hub doesn't hurt anyone because the code has been isolated
and we keep backwards compatibility. So I'd personally still go the
vlan-hub route for QEMU 1.x.
Just to make it clear: I'm not against this series. I'm against having
the functionality in qemu. If we want to keep the functionality, then I
completely agree that this series is the way to go.
I agree with Luiz: if we want to reimplement that much of networking
within QEMU, this series does it in a much better way than VLANs, but
I'd rather not do it at all.
Just advice, not a strong objection.
Doesn't the same logic apply to reimplementing file systems? Shouldn't we drop
qcow3 in favor of using btrfs?
It's easy to make the NIH argument when it's a feature you don't care about.
A lot of people use vlans. It's the only way -net socket is useful too. Just
because most KVM/libvirt users don't doesn't mean they aren't an important
feature to preserve.
I would strongly nack any attempt to remove vlans w/o providing some mechanism
for backwards compatibility which is exactly what this patch series does.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
[...]
--
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
