qemu: Don't use deprecated/removed vlan option for multinet

[Martchus]

Instead, just increase the number of network devices to be added to get another device (with different MAC address).

See https://progress.opensuse.org/issues/29419

@richiejp Am I'm missing something or is it really that easy? At least ip addr now shows the additional device with IP.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1103 into master will increase coverage by 1.7%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##           master    #1103     +/-   ##
=========================================
+ Coverage   38.51%   40.21%   +1.7%     
=========================================
  Files          40       40             
  Lines        4798     4794      -4     
  Branches      805      803      -2     
=========================================
+ Hits         1848     1928     +80     
+ Misses       2626     2541     -85     
- Partials      324      325      +1

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
backend/qemu.pm	32.45% <ø> (+1.54%)	⬆️
needle.pm	54.43% <0%> (+1.26%)	⬆️
consoles/VNC.pm	44.15% <0%> (+1.51%)	⬆️
consoles/console.pm	55% <0%> (+2.5%)	⬆️
consoles/vnc_base.pm	42.7% <0%> (+3.12%)	⬆️
backend/baseclass.pm	58.89% <0%> (+8.97%)	⬆️
consoles/network_console.pm	90.9% <0%> (+9.09%)	⬆️
consoles/sshIucvconn.pm	45% <0%> (+20%)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 307c430...cb3f677. Read the comment docs.

[richiejp]

It is not clear to me whether the two NICs will be on the same VLAN. @asmorodskyi says he will look into it. I'm not familiar with this code so I don't have much useful to say without doing a lot of research.

[Martchus]

I don't think those would be in the same VLAN. Since the previous code explicitly used vlan=1 I thought that this might be what's wanted.

[asmorodskyi]

in this case I suggest to drop this variable at all. I don't see actual use case where such combination could be tested. Basically if you got two NIC which not able to connect each other this means that you can only cover same thing which you could cover with "normal" one NIC machine.
Also after reading code I realized that same thing should be achievable by use of NICMAC or TAPDEV variables

[Martchus]

It is true, the change my $num_networks = $vars->{MULTINET} ? 2 : 1; would be just a shortcut for what could be achieved by passing multiple values via NICMAC or TAPDEV variables.

So I removed the support for that variable at all and updated the documentation to use NICMAC or TAPDEV variables. I don't think anybody is using that MULTINET code path containing obsolete and likely wrong code anyways, right?

[Martchus]

So I assume nobody has any objections?