Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 05:28:02PM CEST, step...@networkplumber.org wrote: >On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 18:42:04 -0700 >Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudr...@intel.com> wrote: > >> Use the registration/notification framework supported by the generic >> failover infrastructure. >> >> Signed-off-by: Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudr...@intel.com> > >Do what you want to other devices but leave netvsc alone. >Adding these failover ops does not reduce the code size, and really is >no benefit. The netvsc device driver needs to be backported to several >other distributions and doing this makes that harder.
We should not care about the backport burden when we are trying to make things right. And things are not right. The current netvsc approach is just plain wrong shortcut. It should have been done in a generic way from the very beginning. We are just trying to fix this situation. Moreover, I believe that part of the fix is to convert netvsc to 3 netdev solution too. 2 netdev model is wrong. > >I will NAK patches to change to common code for netvsc especially the >three device model. MS worked hard with distro vendors to support transparent >mode, ans we really can't have a new model; or do backport. > >Plus, DPDK is now dependent on existing model. Sorry, but nobody here cares about dpdk or other similar oddities.
