On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 08:16:58 -0400, Laine Stump wrote:
> On 05/17/2017 03:51 AM, Vasiliy Tolstov wrote:
> > 2017-05-17 4:25 GMT+03:00 Laine Stump <la...@laine.org>:
> >> 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 :-)

I think we should have two elements in this case. I just don't consider
setting the host link side to be very useful.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list

Reply via email to