Hi,
When Xen Dom0''s network circumstance changed, DomU
should be notified in some special condition. For
example the below circumstance:
ping from Guest A to DomU:
Guest A --> eth0 - bond0 - xenbr0 --VIF(DOMU)
eth1 /
when eth0 inactive, and eth1 active.
Guest A --> eth0 bond0 - xenbr0 --VIF(DOMU)
eth1 /
Guest A will don''t reach to DomU. After Guest A
send ARP request and DomU respond, Guest A will
reach DomU. But some more second will be elapsed.
eth0 bond0 - xenbr0 --VIF(DOMU)
Guest A --> eth1/
If Xen netback watch the network change, will notify
DomU by change it own status. So netfront will watch
netback''s change, and DomU send ARP initiative.
Thanks,
Jason
>>> On 08.01.13 at 12:57, jianhai luan <jianhai.luan@oracle.com> wrote: > When Xen Dom0''s network circumstance changed, DomU > should be notified in some special condition. For > example the below circumstance: > ping from Guest A to DomU: > Guest A --> eth0 - bond0 - xenbr0 --VIF(DOMU) > eth1 / > when eth0 inactive, and eth1 active. > Guest A --> eth0 bond0 - xenbr0 --VIF(DOMU) > eth1 / > Guest A will don''t reach to DomU. After Guest A > send ARP request and DomU respond, Guest A will > reach DomU. But some more second will be elapsed. > eth0 bond0 - xenbr0 --VIF(DOMU) > Guest A --> eth1/Isn''t a change to the availability of the bonds supposed to be transparent to Guest A _and_ DomU? I.e. aren''t you trying to fix an eventual problem here in the wrong place?> If Xen netback watch the network change, will notify > DomU by change it own status. So netfront will watch > netback''s change, and DomU send ARP initiative.Your patch is, at least according to what I see, completely unusable - line breaks dropped, line order reversed, and (guessing) some UTF-16/UCS-2 characters inserted at the top. Please attach patches as plain ASCII. Jan
On Tue, 2013-01-08 at 13:13 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:> >>> On 08.01.13 at 12:57, jianhai luan <jianhai.luan@oracle.com> wrote: > > When Xen Dom0''s network circumstance changed, DomU > > should be notified in some special condition. For > > example the below circumstance: > > ping from Guest A to DomU: > > Guest A --> eth0 - bond0 - xenbr0 --VIF(DOMU) > > eth1 / > > when eth0 inactive, and eth1 active.How is eth0 failing? Are you unplugging it, un-enslaving it or taking some other sort of administrative action? Which bonding mode are you using? Doesn''t this state change cause the switch to which eth0 and eth1 are attached to forget the MAC tables associated with the eth0 port, meaning that subsequent traffic will be flooded until it learns that eth1 is the new port?> > Guest A --> eth0 bond0 - xenbr0 --VIF(DOMU) > > eth1 / > > Guest A will don''t reach to DomU. After Guest A > > send ARP request and DomU respond, Guest A will > > reach DomU. But some more second will be elapsed. > > eth0 bond0 - xenbr0 --VIF(DOMU) > > Guest A --> eth1/ > > Isn''t a change to the availability of the bonds supposed to be > transparent to Guest A _and_ DomU? I.e. aren''t you trying to fix > an eventual problem here in the wrong place?In non-virtualised bonding the bonding drive can take care of some of this because it knows its own MAC address and can send appropriate gratuitous frames (depends on the bonding mode) to paper over things. In the virtualised case it (most likely) doesn''t know VIF(DOMU)s MAC address.> > If Xen netback watch the network change, will notify > > DomU by change it own status. So netfront will watch > > netback''s change, and DomU send ARP initiative. > > Your patch is, at least according to what I see, completely > unusable - line breaks dropped, line order reversed, and > (guessing) some UTF-16/UCS-2 characters inserted at the top. > Please attach patches as plain ASCII.From the name it looks to me like it is the vi temp file created while you have the file open rather than the actual patch file... Ian.
On Tue, 2013-01-08 at 15:40 +0000, jianhai luan wrote:> > On 2013-1-8 21:42, Ian Campbell wrote: > > On Tue, 2013-01-08 at 13:13 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > > > > On 08.01.13 at 12:57, jianhai luan <jianhai.luan@oracle.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > When Xen Dom0''s network circumstance changed, DomU > > > > should be notified in some special condition. For > > > > example the below circumstance: > > > > ping from Guest A to DomU: > > > > Guest A --> eth0 - bond0 - xenbr0 --VIF(DOMU) > > > > eth1 / > > > > when eth0 inactive, and eth1 active. > > How is eth0 failing? Are you unplugging it, un-enslaving it or > > taking > > some other sort of administrative action? > In my emulation environment, i unplug it or ifdown the interface,I expect these would behave rather different, since the affect of ifdown looks rather different to an unplug from the PoV of the switch. Is the ifdown case something which you are trying to solve or just what appeared to be a convenient test case? I''d be less inclined to worry about explict admin actions such as that. Unplugging the cable should cause:> > Doesn''t this state change cause the switch to which eth0 and eth1 > > are > > attached to forget the MAC tables associated with the eth0 port, > > meaning > > that subsequent traffic will be flooded until it learns that eth1 is > > the > > new port?Ian
于 2013年01月09日 00:00, Ian Campbell 写道:> On Tue, 2013-01-08 at 15:40 +0000, jianhai luan wrote: >> On 2013-1-8 21:42, Ian Campbell wrote: >>> On Tue, 2013-01-08 at 13:13 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>>> On 08.01.13 at 12:57, jianhai luan <jianhai.luan@oracle.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>> When Xen Dom0's network circumstance changed, DomU >>>>> should be notified in some special condition. For >>>>> example the below circumstance: >>>>> ping from Guest A to DomU: >>>>> Guest A --> eth0 - bond0 - xenbr0 --VIF(DOMU) >>>>> eth1 / >>>>> when eth0 inactive, and eth1 active. >>> How is eth0 failing? Are you unplugging it, un-enslaving it or >>> taking >>> some other sort of administrative action? >> In my emulation environment, i unplug it or ifdown the interface, > I expect these would behave rather different, since the affect of ifdown > looks rather different to an unplug from the PoV of the switch. > > Is the ifdown case something which you are trying to solve or just what > appeared to be a convenient test case? I'd be less inclined to worry > about explict admin actions such as that. > > Unplugging the cable should cause: >I do above listed thing to let switch active slave only. I think that we should put attention on the thing which bond switch active slave interface in active-backup mode. In network circumstance, many thing will cause the switch, what do Vif when the event happen?>>> Doesn't this state change cause the switch to which eth0 and eth1 >>> are >>> attached to forget the MAC tables associated with the eth0 port, >>> meaning >>> that subsequent traffic will be flooded until it learns that eth1 is >>> the >>> new port? > Ian > > > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing listThanks, Jason> Xen-devel@lists.xen.org > http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
Sorry, My attachment is wrong, please check the patch. On 2013-1-9 0:00, Ian Campbell wrote:> On Tue, 2013-01-08 at 15:40 +0000, jianhai luan wrote: >> On 2013-1-8 21:42, Ian Campbell wrote: >>> On Tue, 2013-01-08 at 13:13 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>>> On 08.01.13 at 12:57, jianhai luan <jianhai.luan@oracle.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>> When Xen Dom0''s network circumstance changed, DomU >>>>> should be notified in some special condition. For >>>>> example the below circumstance: >>>>> ping from Guest A to DomU: >>>>> Guest A --> eth0 - bond0 - xenbr0 --VIF(DOMU) >>>>> eth1 / >>>>> when eth0 inactive, and eth1 active. >>> How is eth0 failing? Are you unplugging it, un-enslaving it or >>> taking >>> some other sort of administrative action? >> In my emulation environment, i unplug it or ifdown the interface, > I expect these would behave rather different, since the affect of ifdown > looks rather different to an unplug from the PoV of the switch. > > Is the ifdown case something which you are trying to solve or just what > appeared to be a convenient test case? I''d be less inclined to worry > about explict admin actions such as that. > > Unplugging the cable should cause: > >>> Doesn''t this state change cause the switch to which eth0 and eth1 >>> are >>> attached to forget the MAC tables associated with the eth0 port, >>> meaning >>> that subsequent traffic will be flooded until it learns that eth1 is >>> the >>> new port? > Ian > >
>>> On 09.01.13 at 08:39, jianhai luan <jianhai.luan@oracle.com> wrote: >@@ -34,11 +35,42 @@ static void connect(struct backend_info *); > static void backend_create_xenvif(struct backend_info *be); > static void unregister_hotplug_status_watch(struct backend_info *be); > >+#define nb_to_backend(nb) container_of(nb, struct backend_info, vif_notifier) >+/** >+ * When network condition of vif change, notify the frontend. >+ */ >+static int netback_netdev_event(struct notifier_block *this, >+ unsigned long event, void *ptr) >+{ >+ struct net_device *event_dev = (struct net_device *)ptr;Pointless cast.>+ struct backend_info *be = nb_to_backend(this); >+ >+ pr_debug("event_dev: %s, event: %lx\n", >+ event_dev ? event_dev->name : "None", event); >+ >+ if (!be->vif) >+ goto out; >+ >+ switch (event) { >+ case NETDEV_NOTIFY_PEERS: >+ /* Notify frontend to Send gratuitous ARP */ >+ xenbus_switch_state(be->dev, XenbusStateInitialised); >+ xenbus_switch_state(be->dev, XenbusStateConnected);This is the sort of change that clearly isn''t acceptable, as I don''t think you have ways to check _all_ existing frontends for their compatibility with this. A connected -> connected transition might be acceptable (that was done in the block frontend too, for implementing dynamic resize), but will likely need to be accompanied by a frontend side patch to handle that (which so far should be a no-op).>+ break; >+ default: >+ break;Pointless default case.>+ } >+ >+out:I don''t think you really need the label (and the goto above) - just put a return there.>+ return NOTIFY_DONE; >+} >+ > static int netback_remove(struct xenbus_device *dev) > { > struct backend_info *be = dev_get_drvdata(&dev->dev); > > unregister_hotplug_status_watch(be); >+ unregister_netdevice_notifier(&be->vif_notifier); > if (be->vif) { > kobject_uevent(&dev->dev.kobj, KOBJ_OFFLINE); > xenbus_rm(XBT_NIL, dev->nodename, "hotplug-status"); >@@ -129,6 +161,10 @@ static int netback_probe(struct xenbus_device *dev, > /* This kicks hotplug scripts, so do it immediately. */ > backend_create_xenvif(be); > >+ /* Register Frontend Event Notify */ >+ (be->vif_notifier).notifier_call = netback_netdev_event;Pointless parentheses. Jan>+ register_netdevice_notifier(&be->vif_notifier); >+ > return 0; > > abort_transaction:
On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 01:07 +0000, Jason Luan wrote:> 于 2013年01月09日 00:00, Ian Campbell 写道: > > On Tue, 2013-01-08 at 15:40 +0000, jianhai luan wrote: > >> On 2013-1-8 21:42, Ian Campbell wrote: > >>> On Tue, 2013-01-08 at 13:13 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>>>>>> On 08.01.13 at 12:57, jianhai luan <jianhai.luan@oracle.com> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>> When Xen Dom0''s network circumstance changed, DomU > >>>>> should be notified in some special condition. For > >>>>> example the below circumstance: > >>>>> ping from Guest A to DomU: > >>>>> Guest A --> eth0 - bond0 - xenbr0 --VIF(DOMU) > >>>>> eth1 / > >>>>> when eth0 inactive, and eth1 active. > >>> How is eth0 failing? Are you unplugging it, un-enslaving it or > >>> taking > >>> some other sort of administrative action? > >> In my emulation environment, i unplug it or ifdown the interface, > > I expect these would behave rather different, since the affect of ifdown > > looks rather different to an unplug from the PoV of the switch. > > > > Is the ifdown case something which you are trying to solve or just what > > appeared to be a convenient test case? I''d be less inclined to worry > > about explict admin actions such as that. > > > > Unplugging the cable should cause: > > > I do above listed thing to let switch active slave only. > I think that we should put attention on the thing which bond switch > active slave interface in active-backup mode. In network circumstance, > many thing will cause the switch, what do Vif when the event happen?Sorry, I''m having a bit of trouble parsing the above, but are you asking what the VIF should do when the active slave in the bond changes without the previously active slave actually failing? The issue is that traffic will continue to arrive on the now inactive slave, but will be discarded (the expected behaviour for Active/Passive)? Is this something which happens in practice? Does the active slave change even while it remains a viable path? Ian.
On 2013-1-9 18:06, Jan Beulich wrote:>>>> On 09.01.13 at 08:39, jianhai luan <jianhai.luan@oracle.com> wrote: >> @@ -34,11 +35,42 @@ static void connect(struct backend_info *); >> static void backend_create_xenvif(struct backend_info *be); >> static void unregister_hotplug_status_watch(struct backend_info *be); >> >> +#define nb_to_backend(nb) container_of(nb, struct backend_info, vif_notifier) >> +/** >> + * When network condition of vif change, notify the frontend. >> + */ >> +static int netback_netdev_event(struct notifier_block *this, >> + unsigned long event, void *ptr) >> +{ >> + struct net_device *event_dev = (struct net_device *)ptr; > Pointless cast. > >> + struct backend_info *be = nb_to_backend(this); >> + >> + pr_debug("event_dev: %s, event: %lx\n", >> + event_dev ? event_dev->name : "None", event); >> + >> + if (!be->vif) >> + goto out; >> + >> + switch (event) { >> + case NETDEV_NOTIFY_PEERS: >> + /* Notify frontend to Send gratuitous ARP */ >> + xenbus_switch_state(be->dev, XenbusStateInitialised); >> + xenbus_switch_state(be->dev, ); > This is the sort of change that clearly isn''t acceptable, as I don''t > think you have ways to check _all_ existing frontends for their > compatibility with this. A connected -> connected transition > might be acceptable (that was done in the block frontend too, for > implementing dynamic resize), but will likely need to be > accompanied by a frontend side patch to handle that (which so > far should be a no-op).The latest xen net-frontent driver have handled the condition. State XenbusStateInitialised will do nothing, but change to XenbusStateConnected will trigger netdev_notify_peers(netdev) to send ARP.> >> + break; >> + default: >> + break; > Pointless default case. > >> + } >> + >> +out: > I don''t think you really need the label (and the goto above) - just > put a return there. > >> + return NOTIFY_DONE; >> +} >> + >> static int netback_remove(struct xenbus_device *dev) >> { >> struct backend_info *be = dev_get_drvdata(&dev->dev); >> >> unregister_hotplug_status_watch(be); >> + unregister_netdevice_notifier(&be->vif_notifier); >> if (be->vif) { >> kobject_uevent(&dev->dev.kobj, KOBJ_OFFLINE); >> xenbus_rm(XBT_NIL, dev->nodename, "hotplug-status"); >> @@ -129,6 +161,10 @@ static int netback_probe(struct xenbus_device *dev, >> /* This kicks hotplug scripts, so do it immediately. */ >> backend_create_xenvif(be); >> >> + /* Event Notify */ >> + (be->vif_notifier).notifier_call = netback_netdev_event; > Pointless parentheses. > > Jan > >> + register_netdevice_notifier(&be->vif_notifier); >> + >> return 0; >> >> abort_transaction: >
>>> On 09.01.13 at 13:28, jianhai luan <jianhai.luan@oracle.com> wrote: >>> + switch (event) { >>> + case NETDEV_NOTIFY_PEERS: >>> + /* Notify frontend to Send gratuitous ARP */ >>> + xenbus_switch_state(be->dev, XenbusStateInitialised); >>> + xenbus_switch_state(be->dev, ); >> This is the sort of change that clearly isn''t acceptable, as I don''t >> think you have ways to check _all_ existing frontends for their >> compatibility with this. A connected -> connected transition >> might be acceptable (that was done in the block frontend too, for >> implementing dynamic resize), but will likely need to be >> accompanied by a frontend side patch to handle that (which so >> far should be a no-op). > The latest xen net-frontent driver have handled the condition. State > XenbusStateInitialised will do nothing, > but change to XenbusStateConnected will trigger > netdev_notify_peers(netdev) to send ARP.Did you read my earlier reply carefully? You still only talk about (upstream) Linux netfront, but this is not the only (possible) frontend. You should not invoke state transitions that can - even if only theoretically - blow up frontends. And afaict the only thing you can safely assume frontends ought to tolerate are transitions from Connected to Connected (or more generally from one state to the same one, but the other states aren''t useful here, except maybe the Reconfigur* ones). Jan
于 2013年01月09日 21:44, Jan Beulich 写道:>>>> On 09.01.13 at 13:28, jianhai luan <jianhai.luan@oracle.com> wrote: >>>> + switch (event) { >>>> + case NETDEV_NOTIFY_PEERS: >>>> + /* Notify frontend to Send gratuitous ARP */ >>>> + xenbus_switch_state(be->dev, XenbusStateInitialised); >>>> + xenbus_switch_state(be->dev, ); >>> This is the sort of change that clearly isn't acceptable, as I don't >>> think you have ways to check _all_ existing frontends for their >>> compatibility with this. A connected -> connected transition >>> might be acceptable (that was done in the block frontend too, for >>> implementing dynamic resize), but will likely need to be >>> accompanied by a frontend side patch to handle that (which so >>> far should be a no-op). >> The latest xen net-frontent driver have handled the condition. State >> XenbusStateInitialised will do nothing, >> but change to XenbusStateConnected will trigger >> netdev_notify_peers(netdev) to send ARP. > Did you read my earlier reply carefully? You still only talk about > (upstream) Linux netfront, but this is not the only (possible) > frontend. You should not invoke state transitions that can - > even if only theoretically - blow up frontends. And afaict theI only want to notify xen-netfront. I don't know what is better way? To attainthegoal, i try to modify virtual interrupt, but the way is morecomplicated,modified and working. So, i give up the way. Would you like to give some suggestion about how to notify xen-netfront?> only thing you can safely assume frontends ought to tolerate > are transitions from Connected to Connected (or more > generally from one state to the same one, but the other > states aren't useful here, except maybe the Reconfigur* ones).Sorry for that. At the beginning the patch be applied in kernel 2.6.18 to fixed one issue. Only XenbusStateInitialised and XenbusStateClosed ( Not Reconfigure* one) don't any thing, so i choose the XenbusStateInitialised. Do you suggestion that i choose Reconfigure*?> > Jan > > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xen.org > http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
>>> On 09.01.13 at 16:37, Jason Luan <luanjianhai@163.com> wrote: > 于 2013年01月09日 21:44, Jan Beulich 写道: >>>>> On 09.01.13 at 13:28, jianhai luan <jianhai.luan@oracle.com> wrote: >>>>> + switch (event) { >>>>> + case NETDEV_NOTIFY_PEERS: >>>>> + /* Notify frontend to Send gratuitous ARP */ >>>>> + xenbus_switch_state(be->dev, XenbusStateInitialised); >>>>> + xenbus_switch_state(be->dev, ); >>>> This is the sort of change that clearly isn''t acceptable, as I don''t >>>> think you have ways to check _all_ existing frontends for their >>>> compatibility with this. A connected -> connected transition >>>> might be acceptable (that was done in the block frontend too, for >>>> implementing dynamic resize), but will likely need to be >>>> accompanied by a frontend side patch to handle that (which so >>>> far should be a no-op). >>> The latest xen net-frontent driver have handled the condition. State >>> XenbusStateInitialised will do nothing, >>> but change to XenbusStateConnected will trigger >>> netdev_notify_peers(netdev) to send ARP. >> Did you read my earlier reply carefully? You still only talk about >> (upstream) Linux netfront, but this is not the only (possible) >> frontend. You should not invoke state transitions that can - >> even if only theoretically - blow up frontends. And afaict the > I only want to notify xen-netfront. I don''t know what is better way? > To attainthegoal, i try to modify virtual interrupt, but the way is > morecomplicated,modified and working. So, i give up the way. > Would you like to give some suggestion about how to notify xen-netfront? >> only thing you can safely assume frontends ought to tolerate >> are transitions from Connected to Connected (or more >> generally from one state to the same one, but the other >> states aren''t useful here, except maybe the Reconfigur* ones). > Sorry for that. At the beginning the patch be applied in kernel 2.6.18 to > fixed one issue. Only XenbusStateInitialised and XenbusStateClosed ( Not > Reconfigure* one) don''t any thing, so i choose the XenbusStateInitialised. > Do you suggestion that i choose Reconfigure*?I already said that I think that only a Connected->Connected transition is to be considered here. Bringing up Reconfigur* was just to point out that there are other states available that could be used, but you''d first need to make sure that (a) they aren''t used for anything else and (b) frontends can reasonably be expected to deal with (ignore) them when not originally aware of them (as opposed to a Connected->Connected transition, which all frontends ought to be able to deal with afaict). Also, when you reply to earlier mails, could you - in order to make the result readable - insert blank lines between the quoted text and your responses, please? Jan
>>> On 09.01.13 at 17:04, Jason Luan <luanjianhai@163.com> wrote:(re-adding xen-devel)> I don''t know the meaning of Connected->Connected transition, can you > give me to detailed explanation?Just take a look at drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c:xen_vbd_resize(). Jan
The patch main to fix the below circumstance:
Bonding run in Active-Backup mode.
Out PC --> switcher
port A --> eth0 --> bond0 --> xenbr0 --> netbackend
--> DomU
port B -- eth1 /
Or
Out PC (R)--> switcher A --> eth0 --> bond0 --> xenbr0 -->
netbackend
--> DomU
\ switcher B -- eth1 /
When Switcher Port A (active port) don''t reach, or switcher A
don''t reach,
the surroundings will changed to the below circumstance.
Out PC --> switcher
port A -X- eth0 -- bond0 -- xenbr0 -- netbackend -- DomU
port B -- eth1 /
Or
Out PC (R)--> switcher A -X- eth0 -- bond0 -- xenbr0 -- netbackend -- DomU
\ switcher B -- eth1 /
So, the former traffic will be unreachable before find the correct path
(by sending
ARP request).
So, the patch is main to found the bonding change event, and gratutious
ARP initialtivly
to out PC find the correct path.
the correct path should be the below circumstance:
Out PC --> switcher
port A -X- eth0 --> bond0 --> xenbr0 --> netbackend -->
DomU
port B --> eth1 /
Or
Out PC (R)--> switcher A -X- eth0 --> bond0 --> xenbr0 -->
netbackend
--> DomU
\ switcher B --> eth1 /
Thanks,
Jason
Hi Ian, Could you give some advice about the patch? Thanks, Jason ? 2013?01?10? 15:00, jianhai luan ??:> The patch main to fix the below circumstance: > Bonding run in Active-Backup mode. > Out PC --> switcher > port A --> eth0 --> bond0 --> xenbr0 --> netbackend --> DomU > port B -- eth1 / > Or > > Out PC (R)--> switcher A --> eth0 --> bond0 --> xenbr0 --> netbackend > --> DomU > \ switcher B -- eth1 / > > When Switcher Port A (active port) don''t reach, or switcher A don''t > reach, > the surroundings will changed to the below circumstance. > Out PC --> switcher > port A -X- eth0 -- bond0 -- xenbr0 -- netbackend -- DomU > port B -- eth1 / > Or > > Out PC (R)--> switcher A -X- eth0 -- bond0 -- xenbr0 -- netbackend -- > DomU > \ switcher B -- eth1 / > > So, the former traffic will be unreachable before find the correct > path (by sending > ARP request). > > So, the patch is main to found the bonding change event, and > gratutious ARP initialtivly > to out PC find the correct path. > > the correct path should be the below circumstance: > Out PC --> switcher > port A -X- eth0 --> bond0 --> xenbr0 --> netbackend --> DomU > port B --> eth1 / > Or > > Out PC (R)--> switcher A -X- eth0 --> bond0 --> xenbr0 --> netbackend > --> DomU > \ switcher B --> eth1 / > > Thanks, > Jason > ????????????? > ??????????,????????????????????,?????????? > > 0001-xen-netback-notify-frontend-to-send-gratuitous-ARP.patch > ??: http://163.fm/DGsSn9l > > ??: http://163.fm/SKhxM8D > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xen.org > http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
Hi Ian, The patch only notify around peer how to reach it when network circumstance changed. I don''t know what''s wrong about the patch (the new feature isn''t proper or the patch have other problem)? Why do any body ask the issue? Thanks, Jason ? 2013?01?10? 23:20, Jason Luan ??:> Hi Ian, > Could you give some advice about the patch? > > Thanks, > Jason > > ? 2013?01?10? 15:00, jianhai luan ??: >> The patch main to fix the below circumstance: >> Bonding run in Active-Backup mode. >> Out PC --> switcher >> port A --> eth0 --> bond0 --> xenbr0 --> netbackend --> DomU >> port B -- eth1 / >> Or >> >> Out PC (R)--> switcher A --> eth0 --> bond0 --> xenbr0 --> netbackend >> --> DomU >> \ switcher B -- eth1 / >> >> When Switcher Port A (active port) don''t reach, or switcher A don''t >> reach, >> the surroundings will changed to the below circumstance. >> Out PC --> switcher >> port A -X- eth0 -- bond0 -- xenbr0 -- netbackend -- DomU >> port B -- eth1 / >> Or >> >> Out PC (R)--> switcher A -X- eth0 -- bond0 -- xenbr0 -- netbackend -- >> DomU >> \ switcher B -- eth1 / >> >> So, the former traffic will be unreachable before find the correct >> path (by sending >> ARP request). >> >> So, the patch is main to found the bonding change event, and >> gratutious ARP initialtivly >> to out PC find the correct path. >> >> the correct path should be the below circumstance: >> Out PC --> switcher >> port A -X- eth0 --> bond0 --> xenbr0 --> netbackend --> DomU >> port B --> eth1 / >> Or >> >> Out PC (R)--> switcher A -X- eth0 --> bond0 --> xenbr0 --> netbackend >> --> DomU >> \ switcher B --> eth1 / >> >> Thanks, >> Jason >> ????????????? >> ??????????,????????????????????,?????????? >> >> 0001-xen-netback-notify-frontend-to-send-gratuitous-ARP.patch >> ??: http://163.fm/DGsSn9l >> >> ??: http://163.fm/SKhxM8D >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Xen-devel mailing list >> Xen-devel@lists.xen.org >> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel > > > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xen.org > http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
On Sun, 2013-01-13 at 01:51 +0000, Jason Luan wrote:> Hi Ian, > The patch only notify around peer how to reach it when network > circumstance changed. > I don''t know what''s wrong about the patch (the new feature isn''t > proper or the patch have other problem)?I think the main remaining concern is Jan''s regarding what effect this patch will have upon the various existing netfront''s out in the wild. Have you considered the behaviour of various distro kernels, and the pvops and classic-Xen trees? I don''t mind if older kernels fail to ARP on this new transition (they are no worse off than now) but if they crash or something that might be an issue.> Why do any body ask the issue?What do you mean? Ian.
于 2013年01月14日 20:16, Ian Campbell 写道:> On Sun, 2013-01-13 at 01:51 +0000, Jason Luan wrote: >> Hi Ian, >> The patch only notify around peer how to reach it when network >> circumstance changed. >> I don't know what's wrong about the patch (the new feature isn't >> proper or the patch have other problem)? > I think the main remaining concern is Jan's regarding what effect this > patch will have upon the various existing netfront's out in the wild. > > Have you considered the behaviour of various distro kernels, and the > pvops and classic-Xen trees?Because the patch fix intern bug of oracle bug queue, I have test some netfontends( v2.6.32, v2.6.39 and the latest kernel of Ubuntu 1104 ) on variable netbackend ( v2.6.18, v2.6.32 and v2.6.39) for more time, no other issue be found. But i don't test classic-xen trees, i will test for whole day at tomorrow.> > I don't mind if older kernels fail to ARP on this new transition (they > are no worse off than now) but if they crash or something that might be > an issue.Yes, you are right. But if no other issue be introduced, sending gratuitous ARP initiative will be better. So, Our trouble is which issue will be introduced by the patch at now? I don't found until now. If you have already thought of some bug, would you like to tell me. I will try to fix it.> >> Why do any body ask the issue?Sorry, It is typo (ask should be ack).> What do you mean? > > Ian. > > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xen.org > http://lists.xen.org/xen-develThanks, Jason _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
>>> On 14.01.13 at 14:39, Jason Luan <luanjianhai@163.com> wrote: > 于 2013年01月14日 20:16, Ian Campbell 写道: >> On Sun, 2013-01-13 at 01:51 +0000, Jason Luan wrote: >>> Hi Ian, >>> The patch only notify around peer how to reach it when network >>> circumstance changed. >>> I don't know what's wrong about the patch (the new feature isn't >>> proper or the patch have other problem)? >> I think the main remaining concern is Jan's regarding what effect this >> patch will have upon the various existing netfront's out in the wild. >> >> Have you considered the behaviour of various distro kernels, and the >> pvops and classic-Xen trees? > > Because the patch fix intern bug of oracle bug queue, I have test some > netfontends( v2.6.32, v2.6.39 and > the latest kernel of Ubuntu 1104 ) on variable netbackend ( v2.6.18, > v2.6.32 and v2.6.39) for more time, no > other issue be found. > > But i don't test classic-xen trees, i will test for whole day at tomorrow.... and Windows and *BSD and Solaris and who knows what else. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
于 2013年01月14日 22:24, Jan Beulich 写道:>>>> On 14.01.13 at 14:39, Jason Luan <luanjianhai@163.com> wrote: >> 于 2013年01月14日 20:16, Ian Campbell 写道: >>> On Sun, 2013-01-13 at 01:51 +0000, Jason Luan wrote: >>>> Hi Ian, >>>> The patch only notify around peer how to reach it when network >>>> circumstance changed. >>>> I don't know what's wrong about the patch (the new feature isn't >>>> proper or the patch have other problem)? >>> I think the main remaining concern is Jan's regarding what effect this >>> patch will have upon the various existing netfront's out in the wild. >>> >>> Have you considered the behaviour of various distro kernels, and the >>> pvops and classic-Xen trees? >> Because the patch fix intern bug of oracle bug queue, I have test some >> netfontends( v2.6.32, v2.6.39 and >> the latest kernel of Ubuntu 1104 ) on variable netbackend ( v2.6.18, >> v2.6.32 and v2.6.39) for more time, no >> other issue be found. >> >> But i don't test classic-xen trees, i will test for whole day at tomorrow. > ... and Windows and *BSD and Solaris and who knows what else.I have tested the issue on Window, Windows don't occur other issue (but Window will don't send ARP) and run good. I don't test the issue on *BSD and Solaris. Do you suggest that i do some test on BSD and Solaris?> > Jan > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xen.org > http://lists.xen.org/xen-develThanks, Jason _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
>>> On 14.01.13 at 15:43, Jason Luan <luanjianhai@163.com> wrote: > 于 2013年01月14日 22:24, Jan Beulich 写道: >>>>> On 14.01.13 at 14:39, Jason Luan <luanjianhai@163.com> wrote: >>> 于 2013年01月14日 20:16, Ian Campbell 写道: >>>> On Sun, 2013-01-13 at 01:51 +0000, Jason Luan wrote: >>>>> Hi Ian, >>>>> The patch only notify around peer how to reach it when network >>>>> circumstance changed. >>>>> I don't know what's wrong about the patch (the new feature isn't >>>>> proper or the patch have other problem)? >>>> I think the main remaining concern is Jan's regarding what effect this >>>> patch will have upon the various existing netfront's out in the wild. >>>> >>>> Have you considered the behaviour of various distro kernels, and the >>>> pvops and classic-Xen trees? >>> Because the patch fix intern bug of oracle bug queue, I have test some >>> netfontends( v2.6.32, v2.6.39 and >>> the latest kernel of Ubuntu 1104 ) on variable netbackend ( v2.6.18, >>> v2.6.32 and v2.6.39) for more time, no >>> other issue be found. >>> >>> But i don't test classic-xen trees, i will test for whole day at tomorrow. >> ... and Windows and *BSD and Solaris and who knows what else. > > I have tested the issue on Window, Windows don't occur other issue (but > Window will don't send ARP) and run good. > I don't test the issue on *BSD and Solaris. Do you suggest that i do > some test on BSD and Solaris?My preference would be for you to adjust your patch. Failing that, the next best one is for you to test all existing frontends (including the multiple different ones available for Windows). Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
By Jan and Ian''s advice, I have modified the former patch and test some
platform, the below is test result:
Linux Pass (Send gratuitous ARP )
Window Pass (don''t send ARP, but no other issue occur)
Solaris Pass (don''t send ARP, but no other issue occur)
NetBsd Pass (don''t send ARP, but no other issue occur)
Thanks,
Jason
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
On 21/01/13 07:26, jianhai luan wrote:> By Jan and Ian''s advice, I have modified the former patch and test some > platform, the below is test result: > Linux Pass (Send gratuitous ARP ) > Window Pass (don''t send ARP, but no other issue occur)There are several different Windows drivers (from different vendors) and many more different versions. Did you test them all?> Solaris Pass (don''t send ARP, but no other issue occur) > NetBsd Pass (don''t send ARP, but no other issue occur)David
于 2013年01月21日 19:04, David Vrabel 写道:> On 21/01/13 07:26, jianhai luan wrote: >> By Jan and Ian's advice, I have modified the former patch and test some >> platform, the below is test result: >> Linux Pass (Send gratuitous ARP ) >> Window Pass (don't send ARP, but no other issue occur) > There are several different Windows drivers (from different vendors) and > many more different versions. Did you test them all?No, I only test our intern window drivers. How do i get other window drivers?> >> Solaris Pass (don't send ARP, but no other issue occur) >> NetBsd Pass (don't send ARP, but no other issue occur) > David > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xen.org > http://lists.xen.org/xen-develThanks, Jason _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
>>> On 21.01.13 at 08:26, jianhai luan <jianhai.luan@oracle.com> wrote: >+static void notify_front_arping(struct xenbus_device *dev) >+{ >+ int err; >+ >+ if (dev->state != XenbusStateConnected) >+ return; >+ >+ err = xenbus_printf(XBT_NIL, dev->nodename, "state", "%d", dev->state); >+ if (err) { >+ pr_fmt("Error writing the state");What''s this? pr_fmt() alone makes no sense at all, and I''d be pretty surprised if the compiler didn''t warn about this construct. Further, you probably want to say "re-writing" and include the error code in the message. And of course you want a \n at the end. Finally - no need for the braces ...>+ } >+ >+ return;... nor this "return".>+}
Which Linux did you test? pvops or something based on the classic-Xen patches? On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 11:55 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:> >>> On 21.01.13 at 08:26, jianhai luan <jianhai.luan@oracle.com> wrote: > >+static void notify_front_arping(struct xenbus_device *dev) > >+{ > >+ int err; > >+ > >+ if (dev->state != XenbusStateConnected) > >+ return; > >+ > >+ err = xenbus_printf(XBT_NIL, dev->nodename, "state", "%d", dev->state); > >+ if (err) { > >+ pr_fmt("Error writing the state"); > > What''s this? pr_fmt() alone makes no sense at all, and I''d be > pretty surprised if the compiler didn''t warn about this construct. > > Further, you probably want to say "re-writing" and include the > error code in the message. And of course you want a \n at the > end. > > Finally - no need for the braces ... > > >+ } > >+ > >+ return; > > ... nor this "return".Agreed on all counts. Jason, when you resend with these fixes please CC the netdev list and folks listed by ./scripts/get-maintainers.pl for the patch. Ian.
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 12:23 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:> Which Linux did you test? pvops or something based on the classic-Xen > patches? > > On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 11:55 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: > > >>> On 21.01.13 at 08:26, jianhai luan <jianhai.luan@oracle.com> wrote: > > >+static void notify_front_arping(struct xenbus_device *dev) > > >+{ > > >+ int err; > > >+ > > >+ if (dev->state != XenbusStateConnected) > > >+ return; > > >+ > > >+ err = xenbus_printf(XBT_NIL, dev->nodename, "state", "%d", dev->state); > > >+ if (err) { > > >+ pr_fmt("Error writing the state"); > > > > What''s this? pr_fmt() alone makes no sense at all, and I''d be > > pretty surprised if the compiler didn''t warn about this construct.BTW this should probably netif_warn() to get a consistently formatted message. Ian.
于 2013年01月21日 20:23, Ian Campbell 写道:> Which Linux did you test? pvops or something based on the classic-Xen > patches?Which Linux, you meaning is which distribution or which version? I have tested Unbreakable Linux on v2.6.18, v2.6.32(need one frontend patch) and v2.6.39, Ubuntu 11.04 on v3.2.0-35. i misunderstand "pvops or something based on the classic-Xen patches?" , Would you like to give me detailed explanation?> > On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 11:55 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 21.01.13 at 08:26, jianhai luan <jianhai.luan@oracle.com> wrote: >>> +static void notify_front_arping(struct xenbus_device *dev) >>> +{ >>> + int err; >>> + >>> + if (dev->state != XenbusStateConnected) >>> + return; >>> + >>> + err = xenbus_printf(XBT_NIL, dev->nodename, "state", "%d", dev->state); >>> + if (err) { >>> + pr_fmt("Error writing the state"); >> What's this? pr_fmt() alone makes no sense at all, and I'd be >> pretty surprised if the compiler didn't warn about this construct. >> >> Further, you probably want to say "re-writing" and include the >> error code in the message. And of course you want a \n at the >> end. >> >> Finally - no need for the braces ... >> >>> + } >>> + >>> + return; >> ... nor this "return". > Agreed on all counts. > > Jason, when you resend with these fixes please CC the netdev list and > folks listed by ./scripts/get-maintainers.pl for the patch. > > Ian. > > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xen.org > http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 13:49 +0000, Jason Luan wrote:> 于 2013年01月21日 20:23, Ian Campbell 写道: > > Which Linux did you test? pvops or something based on the classic-Xen > > patches? > > Which Linux, you meaning is which distribution or which version? I have > tested Unbreakable Linux > on v2.6.18, v2.6.32(need one frontend patch) and v2.6.39, Ubuntu 11.04 > on v3.2.0-35. > > i misunderstand "pvops or something based on the classic-Xen patches?" , > Would you like to give > me detailed explanation?There are two main "ports" of Xen to Linux, the "classic-Xen" patches are the original XenoLinux port (CONFIG_XEN as a purely compile time option) while pvops is the port which eventually went upstream (dynamic runtime detection of Xen). The frontends differ between the two as well. Some distros are still based on the classic-Xen patches, and obviously distros released more than a few years ago (i.e. predate pvops) are too. So I was curious if you had tested a kernel of this type as well as the pvops kernel. Ian. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
于 2013年01月21日 21:52, Ian Campbell 写道:> On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 13:49 +0000, Jason Luan wrote: >> 于 2013年01月21日 20:23, Ian Campbell 写道: >>> Which Linux did you test? pvops or something based on the classic-Xen >>> patches? >> Which Linux, you meaning is which distribution or which version? I have >> tested Unbreakable Linux >> on v2.6.18, v2.6.32(need one frontend patch) and v2.6.39, Ubuntu 11.04 >> on v3.2.0-35. >> >> i misunderstand "pvops or something based on the classic-Xen patches?" , >> Would you like to give >> me detailed explanation? > There are two main "ports" of Xen to Linux, the "classic-Xen" patches > are the original XenoLinux port (CONFIG_XEN as a purely compile time > option) while pvops is the port which eventually went upstream (dynamic > runtime detection of Xen). The frontends differ between the two as well. > > Some distros are still based on the classic-Xen patches, and obviously > distros released more than a few years ago (i.e. predate pvops) are too. > So I was curious if you had tested a kernel of this type as well as the > pvops kernel. > > Ian. >I see. thank your explain. Linux which i have tested should be pvops. I can test "Classic-Xen", but where i get? Thanks, Jason _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 14:02 +0000, Jason Luan wrote:> 于 2013年01月21日 21:52, Ian Campbell 写道: > > On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 13:49 +0000, Jason Luan wrote: > >> 于 2013年01月21日 20:23, Ian Campbell 写道: > >>> Which Linux did you test? pvops or something based on the classic-Xen > >>> patches? > >> Which Linux, you meaning is which distribution or which version? I have > >> tested Unbreakable Linux > >> on v2.6.18, v2.6.32(need one frontend patch) and v2.6.39, Ubuntu 11.04 > >> on v3.2.0-35. > >> > >> i misunderstand "pvops or something based on the classic-Xen patches?" , > >> Would you like to give > >> me detailed explanation? > > There are two main "ports" of Xen to Linux, the "classic-Xen" patches > > are the original XenoLinux port (CONFIG_XEN as a purely compile time > > option) while pvops is the port which eventually went upstream (dynamic > > runtime detection of Xen). The frontends differ between the two as well. > > > > Some distros are still based on the classic-Xen patches, and obviously > > distros released more than a few years ago (i.e. predate pvops) are too. > > So I was curious if you had tested a kernel of this type as well as the > > pvops kernel. > > > > Ian. > > > I see. thank your explain. > Linux which i have tested should be pvops. I can test "Classic-Xen", > but where i get?SLES11 and earlier are using the classic-xen patches, as are RHEL5 and earlier (and Centos etc too, maybe even OVM 5?) http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Dom0_Kernel_Versions has some mappings from distro to type of kernel as well. The mercurial repo at http://xenbits.xen.org/hg/linux-2.6.18-xen.hg contains the source. Ian. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
>>> On 21.01.13 at 15:02, Jason Luan <luanjianhai@163.com> wrote: > Linux which i have tested should be pvops. I can test "Classic-Xen", > but where i get?Your own (Oracle''s) 2.6.32 based kernel(s) ought to be such (as being derived from ours, as I was told). And of course you can always build a kernel from http://xenbits.xen.org/hg/linux-2.6.18-xen.hg. Jan
于 2013年01月21日 22:16, Jan Beulich 写道:>>>> On 21.01.13 at 15:02, Jason Luan <luanjianhai@163.com> wrote: >> Linux which i have tested should be pvops. I can test "Classic-Xen", >> but where i get? > Your own (Oracle's) 2.6.32 based kernel(s) ought to be such (as > being derived from ours, as I was told). And of course you can > always build a kernel from http://xenbits.xen.org/hg/linux-2.6.18-xen.hg. > > JanIf that, I have tested the classic-xen on OVM2.2 (kernel v2.6.18), and have tested pvops on Ubuntu 11.04. Thanks, Jason> > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xen.org > http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
Hi Jan, About the patch, what test do i still need to do in the future? Or just be internal patch(after all, OVM just support Linux, window and Solaris ). Would you give me some advice? Thanks, Jason
>>> On 21.01.13 at 15:54, Jason Luan <luanjianhai@163.com> wrote: > About the patch, what test do i still need to do in the future? > Or just be internal patch(after all, OVM just support Linux, window and > Solaris ). > > Would you give me some advice?With the revised patch (only doing a Connected->Connected transition now) I don''t think you need to do more testing - as said before, I do believe that frontends have to be capable to deal with that (but of course they need to be taught to send an ARP upon that pseudo-transition happening). Jan
于 2013年01月21日 23:20, Jan Beulich 写道:>>>> On 21.01.13 at 15:54, Jason Luan <luanjianhai@163.com> wrote: >> About the patch, what test do i still need to do in the future? >> Or just be internal patch(after all, OVM just support Linux, window and >> Solaris ). >> >> Would you give me some advice? > With the revised patch (only doing a Connected->Connected > transition now) I don't think you need to do more testing - as > said before, I do believe that frontends have to be capable to > deal with that (but of course they need to be taught to send > an ARP upon that pseudo-transition happening).Linux frontend have deal with that, and i don't modify other system. What will i do in the future?> > Jan > > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xen.org > http://lists.xen.org/xen-develThanks, Jason _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
>>> On 21.01.13 at 16:30, Jason Luan <luanjianhai@163.com> wrote: > 于 2013年01月21日 23:20, Jan Beulich 写道: >>>>> On 21.01.13 at 15:54, Jason Luan <luanjianhai@163.com> wrote: >>> About the patch, what test do i still need to do in the future? >>> Or just be internal patch(after all, OVM just support Linux, window and >>> Solaris ). >>> >>> Would you give me some advice? >> With the revised patch (only doing a Connected->Connected >> transition now) I don't think you need to do more testing - as >> said before, I do believe that frontends have to be capable to >> deal with that (but of course they need to be taught to send >> an ARP upon that pseudo-transition happening). > > Linux frontend have deal with that, and i don't modify other system. > What will i do in the future?I don't understand what you're asking. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
于 2013年01月21日 23:44, Jan Beulich 写道:>>>> On 21.01.13 at 16:30, Jason Luan <luanjianhai@163.com> wrote: >> 于 2013年01月21日 23:20, Jan Beulich 写道: >>>>>> On 21.01.13 at 15:54, Jason Luan <luanjianhai@163.com> wrote: >>>> About the patch, what test do i still need to do in the future? >>>> Or just be internal patch(after all, OVM just support Linux, window and >>>> Solaris ). >>>> >>>> Would you give me some advice? >>> With the revised patch (only doing a Connected->Connected >>> transition now) I don't think you need to do more testing - as >>> said before, I do believe that frontends have to be capable to >>> deal with that (but of course they need to be taught to send >>> an ARP upon that pseudo-transition happening). >> Linux frontend have deal with that, and i don't modify other system. >> What will i do in the future? > I don't understand what you're asking.Sorry for that. I mean that what will be need to do about the patch ?> > JanThanks, Jason _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
>>> On 21.01.13 at 16:56, Jason Luan <luanjianhai@163.com> wrote: > 于 2013年01月21日 23:44, Jan Beulich 写道: >>>>> On 21.01.13 at 16:30, Jason Luan <luanjianhai@163.com> wrote: >>> 于 2013年01月21日 23:20, Jan Beulich 写道: >>>>>>> On 21.01.13 at 15:54, Jason Luan <luanjianhai@163.com> wrote: >>>>> About the patch, what test do i still need to do in the future? >>>>> Or just be internal patch(after all, OVM just support Linux, window and >>>>> Solaris ). >>>>> >>>>> Would you give me some advice? >>>> With the revised patch (only doing a Connected->Connected >>>> transition now) I don't think you need to do more testing - as >>>> said before, I do believe that frontends have to be capable to >>>> deal with that (but of course they need to be taught to send >>>> an ARP upon that pseudo-transition happening). >>> Linux frontend have deal with that, and i don't modify other system. >>> What will i do in the future? >> I don't understand what you're asking. > > Sorry for that. I mean that what will be need to do about the patch ?The netback one? Nothing more, afaic. The netfront counterpart I think we're still expecting to see? Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 15:56 +0000, Jason Luan wrote:> 于 2013年01月21日 23:44, Jan Beulich 写道: > >>>> On 21.01.13 at 16:30, Jason Luan <luanjianhai@163.com> wrote: > >> 于 2013年01月21日 23:20, Jan Beulich 写道: > >>>>>> On 21.01.13 at 15:54, Jason Luan <luanjianhai@163.com> wrote: > >>>> About the patch, what test do i still need to do in the future? > >>>> Or just be internal patch(after all, OVM just support Linux, window and > >>>> Solaris ). > >>>> > >>>> Would you give me some advice? > >>> With the revised patch (only doing a Connected->Connected > >>> transition now) I don't think you need to do more testing - as > >>> said before, I do believe that frontends have to be capable to > >>> deal with that (but of course they need to be taught to send > >>> an ARP upon that pseudo-transition happening). > >> Linux frontend have deal with that, and i don't modify other system. > >> What will i do in the future? > > I don't understand what you're asking. > > Sorry for that. I mean that what will be need to do about the patch ?Send it to the right lists, please CC the netdev list and folks listed by ./scripts/get-maintainers.pl for the patch. Ian/ _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
于 2013年01月21日 23:59, Jan Beulich 写道:>>>> On 21.01.13 at 16:56, Jason Luan <luanjianhai@163.com> wrote: >> 于 2013年01月21日 23:44, Jan Beulich 写道: >>>>>> On 21.01.13 at 16:30, Jason Luan <luanjianhai@163.com> wrote: >>>> 于 2013年01月21日 23:20, Jan Beulich 写道: >>>>>>>> On 21.01.13 at 15:54, Jason Luan <luanjianhai@163.com> wrote: >>>>>> About the patch, what test do i still need to do in the future? >>>>>> Or just be internal patch(after all, OVM just support Linux, window and >>>>>> Solaris ). >>>>>> >>>>>> Would you give me some advice? >>>>> With the revised patch (only doing a Connected->Connected >>>>> transition now) I don't think you need to do more testing - as >>>>> said before, I do believe that frontends have to be capable to >>>>> deal with that (but of course they need to be taught to send >>>>> an ARP upon that pseudo-transition happening). >>>> Linux frontend have deal with that, and i don't modify other system. >>>> What will i do in the future? >>> I don't understand what you're asking. >> Sorry for that. I mean that what will be need to do about the patch ? > The netback one? Nothing more, afaic. > > The netfront counterpart I think we're still expecting to see? > > JanI See. Thanks your help. Thanks, Jason _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel