Dan Smith wrote:
KR> This is a good point. Actually, I thought there was some talk of KR> having both Xen and KVM guests use the network interface, but I KR> might be mistaken.
Yeah, and I think this is a good idea. There's no real benefit to supporting the bridge type during the creation of guests because it will only result in a lack of association to a pool.
KR> Right - that's the issue here. We have a KVM guest with a bridge KR> network type. The AddResource() call fails because it generates KR> the new XML incorrectly.
I guess what we need to do is make sure that device_parsing.c can parse a guest with a bridge type of interface and that xmlgen.c writes it back out correctly. Then, we won't break existing guests, but won't support creating them in that configuration from scratch.
Does that sound reasonable?
It means we'd need to do the same with all the interface types (user, ethernet, etc). It's a lot of extra work, but it allows us to manage existing guests. -- Kaitlin Rupert IBM Linux Technology Center kaitlin@linux.vnet.ibm.com