Dan Smith wrote:
JG> Is making the Xen/KVM distinction on network type safe? (That's JG> not a rhetorical way of saying I don't think it is, this is just JG> something I have basically no info on.)
I'm not sure what you're getting at. I don't think that right now anything but a KVM guest can have a network type of "network", so it's a reasonable key for the moment. However, as Kaitlin pointed out (and I eluded to in the updated patch with a comment), I'm only claiming support for "bridge" interfaces on Xen and "[virtual] network" interfaces on KVM.
That call really needs an additional bit of information to know what kind of domain it is to be 100% safe, but I didn't want to refactor it all right now. Perhaps just adding a more specific type enum to the network struct would be a good idea.
Yea that's what I meant. If the only thing that can reasonably have type "network" then it's cool by me. We've got bigger fish to fry than 100% safety on this one. -- -Jay