[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20833.1343950602@death.nxdomain>
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 16:36:42 -0700
From: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>
To: Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@...band.com>
cc: "e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net"
<e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] discussion questions: SR-IOV, virtualization, and bonding
Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@...band.com> wrote:
>On 08/02/2012 05:01 PM, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
>> Chris Friesen<chris.friesen@...band.com> wrote:
>
>> Still, though, isn't "influence the guest's choice" pretty much
>> satisified by having the VF interface go carrier down in the guest when
>> the host wants it to? Or are you thinking about more fine grained than
>> that?
>
>That was the first thing we started looking at.
>
>It would actually be better technically (since it would use the
>back-channel between PF and VFs rather than needing an explicit virtual
>network link between host/guest) but it would require work in all the
>PF/VF drivers. We'd need to get support from all the driver maintainers.
It might also be better (for a different definition of "better")
to use the virtual network link and do more functionality in a generic
user space piece that's not in the kernel and wouldn't require special
driver support. Either way, I imagine there's going to have to be some
sort of message passing going on.
>The main advantage of doing it in bonding is that we'd only need to modify
>the code in one place.
As long as it works with VLANs bonded together; that seems to be
more common these days.
-J
---
-Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, fubar@...ibm.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists