search for: oherwise

...plan to extend it as another standard network interface for > kernel. It could be either a standalone pseudo device or a stack device. > Does this sounds good to you? > > Thanks That's a big change in an interface so it's a good reason to rename the driver at that point right? Oherwise users of an old kernel would expect a stacked driver and get a loopback instead. Or did I miss something? > > > > >

...plan to extend it as another standard network interface for > kernel. It could be either a standalone pseudo device or a stack device. > Does this sounds good to you? > > Thanks That's a big change in an interface so it's a good reason to rename the driver at that point right? Oherwise users of an old kernel would expect a stacked driver and get a loopback instead. Or did I miss something? > > > > >

...> kernel. It could be either a standalone pseudo device or a stack device. > > > Does this sounds good to you? > > > > > > Thanks > > That's a big change in an interface so it's a good reason > > to rename the driver at that point right? > > Oherwise users of an old kernel would expect a stacked driver > > and get a loopback instead. > > > > Or did I miss something? > > > My understanding is that it was a sample driver in /doc. It should not be > used in production environment. Otherwise we need to move it to &g...

...> kernel. It could be either a standalone pseudo device or a stack device. > > > Does this sounds good to you? > > > > > > Thanks > > That's a big change in an interface so it's a good reason > > to rename the driver at that point right? > > Oherwise users of an old kernel would expect a stacked driver > > and get a loopback instead. > > > > Or did I miss something? > > > My understanding is that it was a sample driver in /doc. It should not be > used in production environment. Otherwise we need to move it to &g...

...; kernel. It could be either a standalone pseudo device or a stack >>> device. >>> Does this sounds good to you? >>> >>> Thanks >> That's a big change in an interface so it's a good reason >> to rename the driver at that point right? >> Oherwise users of an old kernel would expect a stacked driver >> and get a loopback instead. >> >> Or did I miss something? > > > My understanding is that it was a sample driver in /doc. It should not > be used in production environment. Otherwise we need to move it to > d...

...; kernel. It could be either a standalone pseudo device or a stack >>> device. >>> Does this sounds good to you? >>> >>> Thanks >> That's a big change in an interface so it's a good reason >> to rename the driver at that point right? >> Oherwise users of an old kernel would expect a stacked driver >> and get a loopback instead. >> >> Or did I miss something? > > > My understanding is that it was a sample driver in /doc. It should not > be used in production environment. Otherwise we need to move it to > d...

...or a stack device. > > > > > Does this sounds good to you? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > That's a big change in an interface so it's a good reason > > > > to rename the driver at that point right? > > > > Oherwise users of an old kernel would expect a stacked driver > > > > and get a loopback instead. > > > > > > > > Or did I miss something? > > > > > > My understanding is that it was a sample driver in /doc. It should not be > > > used in prod...

...or a stack >>>>> device. >>>>> Does this sounds good to you? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>> That's a big change in an interface so it's a good reason >>>> to rename the driver at that point right? >>>> Oherwise users of an old kernel would expect a stacked driver >>>> and get a loopback instead. >>>> >>>> Or did I miss something? >>> >>> My understanding is that it was a sample driver in /doc. It should not >>> be used in production environmen...

...standard network interface for >> kernel. It could be either a standalone pseudo device or a stack device. >> Does this sounds good to you? >> >> Thanks > That's a big change in an interface so it's a good reason > to rename the driver at that point right? > Oherwise users of an old kernel would expect a stacked driver > and get a loopback instead. > > Or did I miss something? My understanding is that it was a sample driver in /doc. It should not be used in production environment. Otherwise we need to move it to driver/virtio. But if you insist, I...

...do device or a stack > > > > device. > > > > Does this sounds good to you? > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > That's a big change in an interface so it's a good reason > > > to rename the driver at that point right? > > > Oherwise users of an old kernel would expect a stacked driver > > > and get a loopback instead. > > > > > > Or did I miss something? > > > > > > My understanding is that it was a sample driver in /doc. It should not > > be used in production environment....

...It could be either a standalone pseudo device or a stack device. >>>> Does this sounds good to you? >>>> >>>> Thanks >>> That's a big change in an interface so it's a good reason >>> to rename the driver at that point right? >>> Oherwise users of an old kernel would expect a stacked driver >>> and get a loopback instead. >>> >>> Or did I miss something? >> >> My understanding is that it was a sample driver in /doc. It should not be >> used in production environment. Otherwise we need to...

On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 09:35:31PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > This sample driver creates mdev device that simulate virtio net device > over virtio mdev transport. The device is implemented through vringh > and workqueue. A device specific dma ops is to make sure HVA is used > directly as the IOVA. This should be sufficient for kernel virtio > driver to work. > > Only

On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 09:35:31PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > This sample driver creates mdev device that simulate virtio net device > over virtio mdev transport. The device is implemented through vringh > and workqueue. A device specific dma ops is to make sure HVA is used > directly as the IOVA. This should be sufficient for kernel virtio > driver to work. > > Only