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 <laine 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.
Description: PGP signature