On Fri, 25 May 2012 15:37:15 +0200 Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Il 25/05/2012 15:30, Luiz Capitulino ha scritto: > > On Fri, 25 May 2012 15:19:28 +0200 > > Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > >> Il 25/05/2012 15:18, Luiz Capitulino ha scritto: > >>>>> > >>>>> 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? > >> > >> That we have an alternative, and that -net dump is actually useful. > > > > I haven't reviewed the series yet, but -net dump can work without this, > > can't it? > > -net dump requires putting a back-end, a front-end and the dump client > in the same VLAN. So it is quite useless without this. VDE allows this too :) > > It's always possible to have alternatives in qemu, the point is how far > > we're going on bloating it. > > > >>>>> 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. > >> > >> Alternatives that require you to have root privileges (anything > >> involving libvirt or iptables) are not really alternatives. > > > > It seems to me that vde doesn't require root, but even if it does, moving > > this outside of qemu would also be feasible. > > Yeah, VDE probably includes something like an hub. But then we could > drop even "-net socket", "-net udp", "-net dump", and only leave in > vde+tap+slirp. Or even move slirp into VDE. :) That's a very different > thing. Let's start with what is hurting us. > Do distributions package VDE at all? I'm not sure. But note that openvswitch is a better alternative for linux.
