Re: discussion questions: SR-IOV, virtualization, and bonding
From: Jay Vosburgh <hidden>
Date: 2012-08-02 23:36:42
Chris Friesen [off-list ref] wrote:
On 08/02/2012 05:01 PM, Jay Vosburgh wrote:quoted
Chris Friesen[off-list ref] wrote:quoted
Still, though, isn't "influence the guest's choice" pretty much satisified by having the VF interface go carrier down in the guest when the host wants it to? Or are you thinking about more fine grained than that?That was the first thing we started looking at. It would actually be better technically (since it would use the back-channel between PF and VFs rather than needing an explicit virtual network link between host/guest) but it would require work in all the PF/VF drivers. We'd need to get support from all the driver maintainers.
It might also be better (for a different definition of "better") to use the virtual network link and do more functionality in a generic user space piece that's not in the kernel and wouldn't require special driver support. Either way, I imagine there's going to have to be some sort of message passing going on.
The main advantage of doing it in bonding is that we'd only need to modify the code in one place.
As long as it works with VLANs bonded together; that seems to be more common these days. -J --- -Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, fubar@us.ibm.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ E1000-devel mailing list E1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/e1000-devel To learn more about Intel® Ethernet, visit http://communities.intel.com/community/wired