From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4 for 2.3] vhost-user live migration support
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 21:28:08 +0800
Message-ID: <20151214132808.GF18437@pxdev.xzpeter.org>
References: <000001d133ed$b2446eb0$16cd4c10$@samsung.com>
 <20151211094934.GX29571@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
 <001c01d133fd$d3a7d870$7af78950$@samsung.com>
 <20151214035842.GB18437@pxdev.xzpeter.org>
 <00c401d13641$5e53cf20$1afb6d60$@samsung.com>
 <20151214090406.GC18437@pxdev.xzpeter.org>
 <00ec01d13654$5f904c20$1eb0e460$@samsung.com>
 <20151214120937.GC29571@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
 <20151214130022.GE18437@pxdev.xzpeter.org>
 <20151214132115.GE29571@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Victor Kaplansky <victork@redhat.com>,
 "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13C6C374F
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 14:28:15 +0100 (CET)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20151214132115.GE29571@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 09:21:15PM +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> Peter,
> 
> Thanks for your input, and that sounds reasonable. You just reminded
> me that the host1's NIC is indeed different with host2's NIC: the ovs
> bridge mac address is different.
> 
> I then had a quick try, setting the two ovs bridge with same mac
> address, and it works like a charm: the gap is gone :)

Good to know that. :)

I will try to do some tests too using the patchset. Not sure whether
I will encounter the same KVM warning (seems related to APIC,
however still could not tell more than that). Will update you if
there is anything helpful.

Peter

> 
> 	--yliu