From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [net-next-2.6 PATCH 2/2] add ndo_set_port_profile op support for enic dynamic vnics Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 13:32:34 +0200 Message-ID: <201005031332.34955.arnd@arndb.de> References: <201004291748.38702.arnd@arndb.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Scott Feldman , davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, chrisw@redhat.com, Jens Osterkamp To: Vivek Kashyap Return-path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.8]:61298 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757831Ab0ECLcl (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 May 2010 07:32:41 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Monday 03 May 2010, Vivek Kashyap wrote: > > After a successful pre-associate-with-resource-reservation step, we > > know that the actual associate step will be both fast and successful. > > After it completes, the VSI is known to be on the destination > > and all traffic goes there (replacing the gratuitous ARP method we do > > today). > > > > I don't think we'd ever do a pre-associate without the > > resource-reservation, but the standard defines both. In theory, > > we could do a pre-associate at every switch in the data center > > in order to find out if it's possible to migrate there. > > > > If you want to have more details, please look at the draft spec at > > http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2010/bg-joint-evb-0410v1.pdf > > The basic difference is that in 'pre-associate with resoruce reservation', the > local buffers and resources needed for the eventual 'associate' are reserved > at the switch port. Therefore the associate will not fail with > 'insufficient resources'. It might otherwise. Yes, that's exactly what I wrote. So do you have any idea why we would ever not want to do the resource reservation? Arnd