search for: netvsc_netdev

...backup_slave are >> > marked as the 2 slaves of this new netdev. >> You say it looks correct and in another sentence you provide completely >> different description. Could you please look again? >> >To be exact, 2 netdev model with netvsc looks like this. > > netvsc_netdev > / > / > VF_slave > >With virtio_net, 3 netdev model > > bypass_netdev > / \ > / \ >VF_slave virtio_net netdev Could you also mark the original netdev which is there now? is it bypass_netdev or virtio_net_netdev ?

...backup_slave are >> > marked as the 2 slaves of this new netdev. >> You say it looks correct and in another sentence you provide completely >> different description. Could you please look again? >> >To be exact, 2 netdev model with netvsc looks like this. > > netvsc_netdev > / > / > VF_slave > >With virtio_net, 3 netdev model > > bypass_netdev > / \ > / \ >VF_slave virtio_net netdev Could you also mark the original netdev which is there now? is it bypass_netdev or virtio_net_netdev ?

...s new netdev. >> > > You say it looks correct and in another sentence you provide completely >> > > different description. Could you please look again? >> > > >> > To be exact, 2 netdev model with netvsc looks like this. >> > >> > netvsc_netdev >> > / >> > / >> > VF_slave >> > >> > With virtio_net, 3 netdev model >> > >> > bypass_netdev >> > / \ >> > / \ >> > VF_slave virtio_net netdev >> Could you also mar...

...s new netdev. >> > > You say it looks correct and in another sentence you provide completely >> > > different description. Could you please look again? >> > > >> > To be exact, 2 netdev model with netvsc looks like this. >> > >> > netvsc_netdev >> > / >> > / >> > VF_slave >> > >> > With virtio_net, 3 netdev model >> > >> > bypass_netdev >> > / \ >> > / \ >> > VF_slave virtio_net netdev >> Could you also mar...

...orrect and in another sentence you provide completely >> > > > > different description. Could you please look again? >> > > > > >> > > > To be exact, 2 netdev model with netvsc looks like this. >> > > > >> > > > netvsc_netdev >> > > > / >> > > > / >> > > > VF_slave >> > > > >> > > > With virtio_net, 3 netdev model >> > > > >> > > > bypass_netdev >> > > > / \ >> > &...

...orrect and in another sentence you provide completely >> > > > > different description. Could you please look again? >> > > > > >> > > > To be exact, 2 netdev model with netvsc looks like this. >> > > > >> > > > netvsc_netdev >> > > > / >> > > > / >> > > > VF_slave >> > > > >> > > > With virtio_net, 3 netdev model >> > > > >> > > > bypass_netdev >> > > > / \ >> > &...

Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 08:47:06PM CEST, sridhar.samudrala at intel.com wrote: >On 4/9/2018 1:07 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> Sat, Apr 07, 2018 at 12:59:14AM CEST, sridhar.samudrala at intel.com wrote: >> > On 4/6/2018 5:48 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> > > Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 11:08:22PM CEST, sridhar.samudrala at intel.com wrote: >> [...] >> >> > > >

Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 08:47:06PM CEST, sridhar.samudrala at intel.com wrote: >On 4/9/2018 1:07 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> Sat, Apr 07, 2018 at 12:59:14AM CEST, sridhar.samudrala at intel.com wrote: >> > On 4/6/2018 5:48 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> > > Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 11:08:22PM CEST, sridhar.samudrala at intel.com wrote: >> [...] >> >> > > >

...ly >> > > > > > > different description. Could you please look again? >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > To be exact, 2 netdev model with netvsc looks like this. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > netvsc_netdev >> > > > > > / >> > > > > > / >> > > > > > VF_slave >> > > > > > >> > > > > > With virtio_net, 3 netdev model >> > > > > > >> > > > > >...

...ly >> > > > > > > different description. Could you please look again? >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > To be exact, 2 netdev model with netvsc looks like this. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > netvsc_netdev >> > > > > > / >> > > > > > / >> > > > > > VF_slave >> > > > > > >> > > > > > With virtio_net, 3 netdev model >> > > > > > >> > > > > >...

...is created and VF_slave and backup_slave are >> marked as the 2 slaves of this new netdev. > You say it looks correct and in another sentence you provide completely > different description. Could you please look again? > To be exact, 2 netdev model with netvsc looks like this. netvsc_netdev / / VF_slave With virtio_net, 3 netdev model bypass_netdev / \ / \ VF_slave virtio_net netdev

...;> marked as the 2 slaves of this new netdev. >>> You say it looks correct and in another sentence you provide completely >>> different description. Could you please look again? >>> >> To be exact, 2 netdev model with netvsc looks like this. >> >> netvsc_netdev >> / >> / >> VF_slave >> >> With virtio_net, 3 netdev model >> >> bypass_netdev >> / \ >> / \ >> VF_slave virtio_net netdev > Could you also mark the original netdev which is there now? is it > byp...

...>>>>> You say it looks correct and in another sentence you provide completely >>>>> different description. Could you please look again? >>>>> >>>> To be exact, 2 netdev model with netvsc looks like this. >>>> >>>> netvsc_netdev >>>> / >>>> / >>>> VF_slave >>>> >>>> With virtio_net, 3 netdev model >>>> >>>> bypass_netdev >>>> / \ >>>> / \ >>>> VF_slave virtio_net n...

...rect and in another sentence you provide completely >>>>>>> different description. Could you please look again? >>>>>>> >>>>>> To be exact, 2 netdev model with netvsc looks like this. >>>>>> >>>>>> netvsc_netdev >>>>>> / >>>>>> / >>>>>> VF_slave >>>>>> >>>>>> With virtio_net, 3 netdev model >>>>>> >>>>>> bypass_netdev >>>>>> / \ >&...

...; > > > > different description. Could you please look again? > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > To be exact, 2 netdev model with netvsc looks like this. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > netvsc_netdev > >> > > > > > / > >> > > > > > / > >> > > > > > VF_slave > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > With virtio_net, 3 netdev model > >> > > > > > &gt...