search for: virio_net

Displaying 13 results from an estimated 13 matches for "virio_net".

Did you mean: virtio_net
2018 Feb 17
4
[RFC PATCH v3 0/3] Enable virtio_net to act as a backup for a passthru device
...nding that right? The problem with the team/bond%d approach is that it creates a new netdevice and so it would require guest configuration changes. > IMHO phys_port_name == "backup" if BACKUP bit is set on slave virtio > link is quite neat. I agree. For non-"backup" virio_net devices would it be okay for us to just return -EOPNOTSUPP? I assume it would be and that way the legacy behavior could be maintained although the function still exists. >> - When the 'active' netdev is unplugged OR not present on a destination >> system after live migration,...
2018 Feb 17
4
[RFC PATCH v3 0/3] Enable virtio_net to act as a backup for a passthru device
...nding that right? The problem with the team/bond%d approach is that it creates a new netdevice and so it would require guest configuration changes. > IMHO phys_port_name == "backup" if BACKUP bit is set on slave virtio > link is quite neat. I agree. For non-"backup" virio_net devices would it be okay for us to just return -EOPNOTSUPP? I assume it would be and that way the legacy behavior could be maintained although the function still exists. >> - When the 'active' netdev is unplugged OR not present on a destination >> system after live migration,...
2018 Feb 22
4
[RFC PATCH v3 0/3] Enable virtio_net to act as a backup for a passthru device
...ond%d approach is that it creates a new >> netdevice and so it would require guest configuration changes. >> >>> IMHO phys_port_name == "backup" if BACKUP bit is set on slave virtio >>> link is quite neat. >> >> I agree. For non-"backup" virio_net devices would it be okay for us to >> just return -EOPNOTSUPP? I assume it would be and that way the legacy >> behavior could be maintained although the function still exists. >> >>>> - When the 'active' netdev is unplugged OR not present on a destination >&...
2018 Feb 22
4
[RFC PATCH v3 0/3] Enable virtio_net to act as a backup for a passthru device
...ond%d approach is that it creates a new >> netdevice and so it would require guest configuration changes. >> >>> IMHO phys_port_name == "backup" if BACKUP bit is set on slave virtio >>> link is quite neat. >> >> I agree. For non-"backup" virio_net devices would it be okay for us to >> just return -EOPNOTSUPP? I assume it would be and that way the legacy >> behavior could be maintained although the function still exists. >> >>>> - When the 'active' netdev is unplugged OR not present on a destination >&...
2018 Feb 19
0
[RFC PATCH v3 0/3] Enable virtio_net to act as a backup for a passthru device
...with the team/bond%d approach is that it creates a new > netdevice and so it would require guest configuration changes. > > > IMHO phys_port_name == "backup" if BACKUP bit is set on slave virtio > > link is quite neat. > > I agree. For non-"backup" virio_net devices would it be okay for us to > just return -EOPNOTSUPP? I assume it would be and that way the legacy > behavior could be maintained although the function still exists. That's my understanding too.
2018 Feb 24
0
[RFC PATCH v3 0/3] Enable virtio_net to act as a backup for a passthru device
...a new > >> netdevice and so it would require guest configuration changes. > >> > >>> IMHO phys_port_name == "backup" if BACKUP bit is set on slave virtio > >>> link is quite neat. > >> > >> I agree. For non-"backup" virio_net devices would it be okay for us to > >> just return -EOPNOTSUPP? I assume it would be and that way the legacy > >> behavior could be maintained although the function still exists. > >> > >>>> - When the 'active' netdev is unplugged OR not present...
2018 Feb 21
0
[RFC PATCH v3 0/3] Enable virtio_net to act as a backup for a passthru device
...blem with the team/bond%d approach is that it creates a new > netdevice and so it would require guest configuration changes. > >> IMHO phys_port_name == "backup" if BACKUP bit is set on slave virtio >> link is quite neat. > > I agree. For non-"backup" virio_net devices would it be okay for us to > just return -EOPNOTSUPP? I assume it would be and that way the legacy > behavior could be maintained although the function still exists. > >>> - When the 'active' netdev is unplugged OR not present on a destination >>> system...
2018 Feb 22
3
[RFC PATCH v3 0/3] Enable virtio_net to act as a backup for a passthru device
...es a new >>>> netdevice and so it would require guest configuration changes. >>>> >>>>> IMHO phys_port_name == "backup" if BACKUP bit is set on slave virtio >>>>> link is quite neat. >>>> I agree. For non-"backup" virio_net devices would it be okay for us to >>>> just return -EOPNOTSUPP? I assume it would be and that way the legacy >>>> behavior could be maintained although the function still exists. >>>> >>>>>> - When the 'active' netdev is unplugged OR no...
2018 Feb 22
3
[RFC PATCH v3 0/3] Enable virtio_net to act as a backup for a passthru device
...es a new >>>> netdevice and so it would require guest configuration changes. >>>> >>>>> IMHO phys_port_name == "backup" if BACKUP bit is set on slave virtio >>>>> link is quite neat. >>>> I agree. For non-"backup" virio_net devices would it be okay for us to >>>> just return -EOPNOTSUPP? I assume it would be and that way the legacy >>>> behavior could be maintained although the function still exists. >>>> >>>>>> - When the 'active' netdev is unplugged OR no...
2018 Feb 22
0
[RFC PATCH v3 0/3] Enable virtio_net to act as a backup for a passthru device
...t creates a new >>> netdevice and so it would require guest configuration changes. >>> >>>> IMHO phys_port_name == "backup" if BACKUP bit is set on slave virtio >>>> link is quite neat. >>> >>> I agree. For non-"backup" virio_net devices would it be okay for us to >>> just return -EOPNOTSUPP? I assume it would be and that way the legacy >>> behavior could be maintained although the function still exists. >>> >>>>> - When the 'active' netdev is unplugged OR not present on a d...
2018 Feb 23
0
[RFC PATCH v3 0/3] Enable virtio_net to act as a backup for a passthru device
...nd so it would require guest configuration changes. >>>>> >>>>>> IMHO phys_port_name == "backup" if BACKUP bit is set on slave virtio >>>>>> link is quite neat. >>>>> >>>>> I agree. For non-"backup" virio_net devices would it be okay for us to >>>>> just return -EOPNOTSUPP? I assume it would be and that way the legacy >>>>> behavior could be maintained although the function still exists. >>>>> >>>>>>> - When the 'active' netdev is...
2018 Feb 16
8
[RFC PATCH v3 0/3] Enable virtio_net to act as a backup for a passthru device
Patch 1 introduces a new feature bit VIRTIO_NET_F_BACKUP that can be used by hypervisor to indicate that virtio_net interface should act as a backup for another device with the same MAC address. Ppatch 2 is in response to the community request for a 3 netdev solution. However, it creates some issues we'll get into in a moment. It extends virtio_net to use alternate datapath when available
2018 Feb 16
8
[RFC PATCH v3 0/3] Enable virtio_net to act as a backup for a passthru device
Patch 1 introduces a new feature bit VIRTIO_NET_F_BACKUP that can be used by hypervisor to indicate that virtio_net interface should act as a backup for another device with the same MAC address. Ppatch 2 is in response to the community request for a 3 netdev solution. However, it creates some issues we'll get into in a moment. It extends virtio_net to use alternate datapath when available