On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 03:25:19PM -0700, Siwei Liu wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 2:47 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 12:43:26PM -0700, Siwei Liu wrote:
> >> > The semantics are that the primary is always used if present in
> >> > preference to standby.
> >> OK. If th
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 2:47 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 12:43:26PM -0700, Siwei Liu wrote:
>> > The semantics are that the primary is always used if present in
>> > preference to standby.
>> OK. If this is the only semantics of what "standby" refers to in
>> general, t
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 12:43:26PM -0700, Siwei Liu wrote:
> > The semantics are that the primary is always used if present in
> > preference to standby.
> OK. If this is the only semantics of what "standby" refers to in
> general, that is fine.
>
> I just don't want to limit the failover/standby
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 7:30 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 06:07:18PM -0700, Siwei Liu wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 11:14 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 01:40:59PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 2018年06月13日 12:24, Samudrala
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 06:07:18PM -0700, Siwei Liu wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 11:14 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 01:40:59PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2018年06月13日 12:24, Samudrala, Sridhar wrote:
> >> > On 6/12/2018 7:38 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
> >
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 11:14 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 01:40:59PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2018年06月13日 12:24, Samudrala, Sridhar wrote:
>> > On 6/12/2018 7:38 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On 2018年06月12日 19:54, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> >
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 01:40:59PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>
>
> On 2018年06月13日 12:24, Samudrala, Sridhar wrote:
> > On 6/12/2018 7:38 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2018年06月12日 19:54, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 10:29:03AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> >
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 4:47 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 03:09:26PM -0700, Siwei Liu wrote:
>> The thing is cloud service provider might prefer sticking to the same
>> level of service agreement (SLA) of keeping VF over migration,
>
> That requirement is trivially satis
On 2018年06月13日 12:24, Samudrala, Sridhar wrote:
On 6/12/2018 7:38 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
On 2018年06月12日 19:54, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 10:29:03AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
On 2018年06月05日 20:33, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
I don't think this is sufficient.
If both
On 6/12/2018 7:38 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
On 2018年06月12日 19:54, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 10:29:03AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
On 2018年06月05日 20:33, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
I don't think this is sufficient.
If both primary and standby devices are present, a legacy gu
On 2018年06月12日 19:54, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 10:29:03AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
On 2018年06月05日 20:33, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
I don't think this is sufficient.
If both primary and standby devices are present, a legacy guest without
support for the feature migh
On 6/12/2018 4:54 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 10:29:03AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
On 2018年06月05日 20:33, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
I don't think this is sufficient.
If both primary and standby devices are present, a legacy guest without
support for the feature might s
On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 10:29:03AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>
>
> On 2018年06月05日 20:33, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > I don't think this is sufficient.
> >
> > If both primary and standby devices are present, a legacy guest without
> > support for the feature might see two devices with same mac
On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 03:09:26PM -0700, Siwei Liu wrote:
> The thing is cloud service provider might prefer sticking to the same
> level of service agreement (SLA) of keeping VF over migration,
That requirement is trivially satisfied by just a single VF :) If your
SLA does not require live migra
On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 04:09:54PM -0700, Sridhar Samudrala wrote:
> This feature bit can be used by hypervisor to indicate virtio_net device to
> act as a standby for another device with the same MAC address.
>
> I tested this with a small change to the patch to mark the STANDBY feature
> 'true'
On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 11:17:36AM -0700, Samudrala, Sridhar wrote:
> On 6/4/2018 7:06 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 2018年06月05日 09:41, Samudrala, Sridhar wrote:
> > > Ping on this patch now that the kernel patches are accepted into
> > > davem's net-next tree.
> > > https://patchwork.ozla
On 6/4/2018 7:06 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
On 2018年06月05日 09:41, Samudrala, Sridhar wrote:
Ping on this patch now that the kernel patches are accepted into
davem's net-next tree.
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/920005/
On 5/7/2018 4:09 PM, Sridhar Samudrala wrote:
This feature bit can be use
On 2018年06月05日 20:33, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
I don't think this is sufficient.
If both primary and standby devices are present, a legacy guest without
support for the feature might see two devices with same mac and get
confused.
I think that we should only make primary visible after guest
On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 02:16:44PM -0700, Siwei Liu wrote:
>> Good to see this discussion going. I share the same feeling that the
>> decision of plugging the primary (passthrough) should only be made
>> until guest driver acknowledges DR
On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 02:16:44PM -0700, Siwei Liu wrote:
> Good to see this discussion going. I share the same feeling that the
> decision of plugging the primary (passthrough) should only be made
> until guest driver acknowledges DRIVER_OK and _F_STANDBY.
> Architecturally this intelligence shou
Good to see this discussion going. I share the same feeling that the
decision of plugging the primary (passthrough) should only be made
until guest driver acknowledges DRIVER_OK and _F_STANDBY.
Architecturally this intelligence should be baken to QEMU itself
rather than moving up to management stac
On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 01:20:33PM -0700, Samudrala, Sridhar wrote:
>
> On 6/5/2018 5:33 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > I don't think this is sufficient.
>
> Sure. This is not sufficient for a complete solution, but is Qemu the right
> place
> to manage primary/standby interfaces?
>
> I thin
On 6/5/2018 5:33 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
I don't think this is sufficient.
Sure. This is not sufficient for a complete solution, but is Qemu the right
place
to manage primary/standby interfaces?
I think the other steps including plugging/unplugging the primary interface
needs
to hand
I don't think this is sufficient.
If both primary and standby devices are present, a legacy guest without
support for the feature might see two devices with same mac and get
confused.
I think that we should only make primary visible after guest acked the
backup feature bit.
And on reset or when
On 2018年06月05日 09:41, Samudrala, Sridhar wrote:
Ping on this patch now that the kernel patches are accepted into
davem's net-next tree.
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/920005/
On 5/7/2018 4:09 PM, Sridhar Samudrala wrote:
This feature bit can be used by hypervisor to indicate virtio_net
Ping on this patch now that the kernel patches are accepted into davem's
net-next tree.
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/920005/
On 5/7/2018 4:09 PM, Sridhar Samudrala wrote:
This feature bit can be used by hypervisor to indicate virtio_net device to
act as a standby for another device with
26 matches
Mail list logo
