[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180223155904.27b11865@xeon-e3>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 15:59:04 -0800
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
Cc: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@...pl>,
"Samudrala, Sridhar" <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
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>,
Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
Siwei Liu <loseweigh@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/3] Enable virtio_net to act as a backup for a
passthru device
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 13:30:12 -0800
Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com> wrote:
> > Again, I undertand your motivation. Yet I don't like your solution.
> > But if the decision is made to do this in-driver bonding. I would like
> > to see it baing done some generic way:
> > 1) share the same "in-driver bonding core" code with netvsc
> > put to net/core.
> > 2) the "in-driver bonding core" will strictly limit the functionality,
> > like active-backup mode only, one vf, one backup, vf netdev type
> > check (so noone could enslave a tap or anything else)
> > If user would need something more, he should employ team/bond.
Sharing would be good, but netvsc world would really like to only have
one visible network device.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists