On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 04:42:22 +0300 "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 06:25:03PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 12:44:39 -0700 > > Siwei Liu <losewe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 10:56 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> > > > wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 10:44:40AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 20:24:56 +0300 > > > >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 10:04:06AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >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. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > The network device model is a userspace API, and DPDK is a > > > >> > > userspace application. > > > >> > > > > >> > It is userspace but are you sure dpdk is actually poking at netdevs? > > > >> > AFAIK it's normally banging device registers directly. > > > >> > > > > >> > > You can't go breaking userspace even if you don't like the > > > >> > > application. > > > >> > > > > >> > Could you please explain how is the proposed patchset breaking > > > >> > userspace? Ignoring DPDK for now, I don't think it changes the > > > >> > userspace > > > >> > API at all. > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> The DPDK has a device driver vdev_netvsc which scans the Linux network > > > >> devices > > > >> to look for Linux netvsc device and the paired VF device and setup the > > > >> DPDK environment. This setup creates a DPDK failsafe (bondingish) > > > >> instance > > > >> and sets up TAP support over the Linux netvsc device as well as the > > > >> Mellanox > > > >> VF device. > > > >> > > > >> So it depends on existing 2 device model. You can't go to a 3 device > > > >> model > > > >> or start hiding devices from userspace. > > > > > > > > Okay so how does the existing patch break that? IIUC does not go to > > > > a 3 device model since netvsc calls failover_register directly. > > > > > > > >> Also, I am working on associating netvsc and VF device based on serial > > > >> number > > > >> rather than MAC address. The serial number is how Windows works now, > > > >> and it makes > > > >> sense for Linux and Windows to use the same mechanism if possible. > > > > > > > > Maybe we should support same for virtio ... > > > > Which serial do you mean? From vpd? > > > > > > > > I guess you will want to keep supporting MAC for old hypervisors? > > > > The serial number has always been in the hypervisor since original support > > of SR-IOV > > in WS2008. So no backward compatibility special cases would be needed. > > Is that a serial from real hardware or a hypervisor thing? > > It is a hypervisor thing in the PCI hyperv code and the hyperv Netvsc interface. It might also be in the PCI spec, but the value in Hyper-V is being generated by the host. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
