search for: backup_slave

...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!

...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!

...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 netdev is created and VF_slave and backup_slave are >marke...

...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 netdev is created and VF_slave and backup_slave are >marke...

...> > > 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, bypas...

...> > > 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, bypas...

...> / >> > > > > 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...

...> / >> > > > > 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...

...io. > 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 netdev is created and VF_slave and backup_slave are marked as the 2 slaves of this new netde...

...gt; > > > > > >> > > > > > > 3netdev: >> > > > > > > bypass_master >> > > > > > > / \ >> > > > > > > / \ >> > > > > > > VF_slave backup_slave >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Is that correct? If not, how does it look like? >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Looks correct. >> > > > > > VF_slave...

...gt; > > > > > >> > > > > > > 3netdev: >> > > > > > > bypass_master >> > > > > > > / \ >> > > > > > > / \ >> > > > > > > VF_slave backup_slave >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Is that correct? If not, how does it look like? >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Looks correct. >> > > > > > VF_slave...

...> > > > > 3netdev: >> > > > > > > > > bypass_master >> > > > > > > > > / \ >> > > > > > > > > / \ >> > > > > > > > > VF_slave backup_slave >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Is that correct? If not, how does it look like? >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Looks co...

...> > > > > 3netdev: >> > > > > > > > > bypass_master >> > > > > > > > > / \ >> > > > > > > > > / \ >> > > > > > > > > VF_slave backup_slave >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Is that correct? If not, how does it look like? >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Looks co...

...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 netdev is created and VF_slave an...

...ass_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 netde...

...t; / >>>>>>> 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...

...>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 3netdev: >>>>>>>>> bypass_master >>>>>>>>> / \ >>>>>>>>> / \ >>>>>>>>> VF_slave backup_slave >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Is that correct? If not, how does it look like? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Looks correct. >>>>>>>> VF_slave and backup_sl...

...> 3netdev: > >> > > > > > > > > bypass_master > >> > > > > > > > > / \ > >> > > > > > > > > / \ > >> > > > > > > > > VF_slave backup_slave > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Is that correct? If not, how does it look like? > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > &gt...

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