On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 05:39:12PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > >>> Moreover, you were suggesting hiding the lower slave devices anyway. > > >>> There was some discussion > > >>> about moving them to a hidden network namespace so that they are not > > >>> visible from the default namespace. > > >>> I looked into this sometime back, but did not find the right kernel api > > >>> to create a network namespace within > > >>> kernel. If so, we could use this mechanism to simulate a 1-netdev > > >>> model. > > >> Yes, that's one possible implementation (IMHO the key is to make 1-netdev > > >> model as much transparent to a real NIC as possible, while a hidden > > >> netns is > > >> just the vehicle). However, I recall there was resistance around this > > >> discussion that even the concept of hiding itself is a taboo for Linux > > >> netdev. I would like to summon potential alternatives before concluding > > >> 1-netdev is the only solution too soon. > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> -Siwei > > > Your scripts would not work at all then, right? > > At this point we don't claim images with such usage as SR-IOV live > > migrate-able. We would flag it as live migrate-able until this ethtool > > config issue is fully addressed and a transparent live migration > > solution emerges in upstream eventually. > > The hyper-v netvsc with 1-dev model uses a timeout to allow udev to do its > rename. > I proposed a patch to key state change off of the udev rename, but that patch > was > rejected.
Of course that would mean nothing works without udev - was that the objection? Could you help me find that discussion pls? -- MST _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
