search for: 3netdev

...ver is doing >a 2 netdev or 3 netdev model and based on that flag this check can be done in bypass module >for 3 netdev scenario. Just let me undestand it clearly. What I expect the difference would be between 2netdev and3 netdev model is this: 2netdev: bypass_master / / VF_slave 3netdev: bypass_master / \ / \ VF_slave backup_slave Is that correct? If not, how does it look like? Thanks!

...ver is doing >a 2 netdev or 3 netdev model and based on that flag this check can be done in bypass module >for 3 netdev scenario. Just let me undestand it clearly. What I expect the difference would be between 2netdev and3 netdev model is this: 2netdev: bypass_master / / VF_slave 3netdev: bypass_master / \ / \ VF_slave backup_slave Is that correct? If not, how does it look like? Thanks!

...n bypass module >> > for 3 netdev scenario. >> Just let me undestand it clearly. What I expect the difference would be >> between 2netdev and3 netdev model is this: >> 2netdev: >> bypass_master >> / >> / >> VF_slave >> >> 3netdev: >> bypass_master >> / \ >> / \ >> VF_slave backup_slave >> >> Is that correct? If not, how does it look like? >> >> >Looks correct. >VF_slave and backup_slave are the original netdevs and are present in both the mod...

...n bypass module >> > for 3 netdev scenario. >> Just let me undestand it clearly. What I expect the difference would be >> between 2netdev and3 netdev model is this: >> 2netdev: >> bypass_master >> / >> / >> VF_slave >> >> 3netdev: >> bypass_master >> / \ >> / \ >> VF_slave backup_slave >> >> Is that correct? If not, how does it look like? >> >> >Looks correct. >VF_slave and backup_slave are the original netdevs and are present in both the mod...

...it clearly. What I expect the difference would be >> > > between 2netdev and3 netdev model is this: >> > > 2netdev: >> > > bypass_master >> > > / >> > > / >> > > VF_slave >> > > >> > > 3netdev: >> > > bypass_master >> > > / \ >> > > / \ >> > > VF_slave backup_slave >> > > >> > > Is that correct? If not, how does it look like? >> > > >> > > >> > Looks co...

...it clearly. What I expect the difference would be >> > > between 2netdev and3 netdev model is this: >> > > 2netdev: >> > > bypass_master >> > > / >> > > / >> > > VF_slave >> > > >> > > 3netdev: >> > > bypass_master >> > > / \ >> > > / \ >> > > VF_slave backup_slave >> > > >> > > Is that correct? If not, how does it look like? >> > > >> > > >> > Looks co...

...ween 2netdev and3 netdev model is this: >> > > > > 2netdev: >> > > > > bypass_master >> > > > > / >> > > > > / >> > > > > VF_slave >> > > > > >> > > > > 3netdev: >> > > > > bypass_master >> > > > > / \ >> > > > > / \ >> > > > > VF_slave backup_slave >> > > > > >> > > > > Is that correct? If not, how does it look like?...

...ween 2netdev and3 netdev model is this: >> > > > > 2netdev: >> > > > > bypass_master >> > > > > / >> > > > > / >> > > > > VF_slave >> > > > > >> > > > > 3netdev: >> > > > > bypass_master >> > > > > / \ >> > > > > / \ >> > > > > VF_slave backup_slave >> > > > > >> > > > > Is that correct? If not, how does it look like?...

...> 2netdev: >> > > > > > > bypass_master >> > > > > > > / >> > > > > > > / >> > > > > > > VF_slave >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 3netdev: >> > > > > > > bypass_master >> > > > > > > / \ >> > > > > > > / \ >> > > > > > > VF_slave backup_slave >> > > > > > > >> > > >...

...> 2netdev: >> > > > > > > bypass_master >> > > > > > > / >> > > > > > > / >> > > > > > > VF_slave >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 3netdev: >> > > > > > > bypass_master >> > > > > > > / \ >> > > > > > > / \ >> > > > > > > VF_slave backup_slave >> > > > > > > >> > > >...

...bypass_master >> > > > > > > > > / >> > > > > > > > > / >> > > > > > > > > VF_slave >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 3netdev: >> > > > > > > > > bypass_master >> > > > > > > > > / \ >> > > > > > > > > / \ >> > > > > > > > > VF_slave backup_slave >> > > &...

...bypass_master >> > > > > > > > > / >> > > > > > > > > / >> > > > > > > > > VF_slave >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 3netdev: >> > > > > > > > > bypass_master >> > > > > > > > > / \ >> > > > > > > > > / \ >> > > > > > > > > VF_slave backup_slave >> > > &...

...tdev scenario. >>> Just let me undestand it clearly. What I expect the difference would be >>> between 2netdev and3 netdev model is this: >>> 2netdev: >>> bypass_master >>> / >>> / >>> VF_slave >>> >>> 3netdev: >>> bypass_master >>> / \ >>> / \ >>> VF_slave backup_slave >>> >>> Is that correct? If not, how does it look like? >>> >>> >> Looks correct. >> VF_slave and backup_slave are the origin...

...I expect the difference would be >>>>> between 2netdev and3 netdev model is this: >>>>> 2netdev: >>>>> bypass_master >>>>> / >>>>> / >>>>> VF_slave >>>>> >>>>> 3netdev: >>>>> bypass_master >>>>> / \ >>>>> / \ >>>>> VF_slave backup_slave >>>>> >>>>> Is that correct? If not, how does it look like? >>>>> >>>>> >&g...

...ased on that flag this check can be done in bypass module >> for 3 netdev scenario. > Just let me undestand it clearly. What I expect the difference would be > between 2netdev and3 netdev model is this: > 2netdev: > bypass_master > / > / > VF_slave > > 3netdev: > bypass_master > / \ > / \ > VF_slave backup_slave > > Is that correct? If not, how does it look like? > > Looks correct. VF_slave and backup_slave are the original netdevs and are present in both the models. In the 3 netdev model, bypass_master n...

...en 2netdev and3 netdev model is this: >>>>>>> 2netdev: >>>>>>> bypass_master >>>>>>> / >>>>>>> / >>>>>>> VF_slave >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3netdev: >>>>>>> bypass_master >>>>>>> / \ >>>>>>> / \ >>>>>>> VF_slave backup_slave >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is that correct? If not, how does it look lik...

...gt;>>> 2netdev: >>>>>>>>> bypass_master >>>>>>>>> / >>>>>>>>> / >>>>>>>>> VF_slave >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 3netdev: >>>>>>>>> bypass_master >>>>>>>>> / \ >>>>>>>>> / \ >>>>>>>>> VF_slave backup_slave >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>&gt...

...; >> > > > > > > > > / > >> > > > > > > > > / > >> > > > > > > > > VF_slave > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 3netdev: > >> > > > > > > > > bypass_master > >> > > > > > > > > / \ > >> > > > > > > > > / \ > >> > > > > > > > > VF_slave backup_slave...

Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 11:08:22PM CEST, sridhar.samudrala at intel.com wrote: >This patch enables virtio_net to switch over to a VF datapath when a VF >netdev is present with the same MAC address. It allows live migration >of a VM with a direct attached VF without the need to setup a bond/team >between a VF and virtio net device in the guest. > >The hypervisor needs to enable only

Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 11:08:22PM CEST, sridhar.samudrala at intel.com wrote: >This patch enables virtio_net to switch over to a VF datapath when a VF >netdev is present with the same MAC address. It allows live migration >of a VM with a direct attached VF without the need to setup a bond/team >between a VF and virtio net device in the guest. > >The hypervisor needs to enable only