[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180123112133.688379d7@cakuba.netronome.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 11:21:33 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@...pl>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: "Samudrala, Sridhar" <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>,
Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org,
"Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
"Duyck, Alexander H" <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>,
achiad shochat <achiad.mellanox@...il.com>,
Achiad Shochat <achiad@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] [RFC PATCH net-next v2 1/2] virtio_net: Introduce
VIRTIO_NET_F_BACKUP feature bit
On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 03:23:57 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > b. next-gen silicon may be able to disguise as virtio device, and the
> > > > loop check in virtio driver will prevent the legitimate bond it such
> > > > case. AFAIU that's one of the goals of next-gen virtio spec as well.
> > >
> > > In fact we have a virtio feature bit for the fallback.
> > > So this part does not depend on how software in guest works
> > > and does not need software solutions.
> >
> > You mean in the new spec? Nice. Still I think people will try to
> > implement the old one too given sufficiently capable HW.
>
> Existing HW won't have the BACKUP feature so the new functionality
> won't be activated. So no problem I think.
I meant code that compares of netdev_ops, e.g.:
+ /* Skip our own events */
+ if (event_dev->netdev_ops == &virtnet_netdev)
+ return NOTIFY_DONE;
Would be an obstacle to bonding virtio_nets. But that's just one of
the thoughts, perhaps of disputable value. Anyway, separate netdev and
netdev_ops will solve this, and I think we agree that's preferable :)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists