On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 15:32 +0000, KY Srinivasan wrote:
> Ben,
>
> Sorry to be top posting; since I got into this thread late and I was
> only commenting on one item, I felt top posting was appropriate.
> Thanks for the patches and the analysis. With regards to question 4,
> why do you say the protocol is not stable. The protocol is stable and
> is backward compatible. However, our implementation on the guest side
> has been incremental and with incomplete knowledge of the protocol.
I mean the kernel-to-daemon connector protocol, not the host-to-guest
protocol.
Do you expect to change the connector protocol in future, and if so
would the new daemon then be incompatible with old kernel versions? If
so, then the daemon needs to be packaged in such a way that there can be
multiple versions installed and we automatically start whichever matches
the current kernel version. But if it will remain backward-compatible
then we don't need to bother with that.
> Recently I sent out patches for IP injection based on our current code
> base. The patches are still in Greg's queue. Once Greg deals with
> these patches, we can work on getting your changes in. In the
> meantime, we can test your patches.
Thanks.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
Lowery's Law:
If it jams, force it. If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part