From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Wright Subject: Re: [net-next,1/2] add iovnl netlink support Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 14:03:42 -0700 Message-ID: <20100422210342.GC30693@x200.localdomain> References: <201004222048.53950.arnd@arndb.de> <20100422190230.GL28829@x200.localdomain> <201004222136.50397.arnd@arndb.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Chris Wright , Scott Feldman , davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Mitch Williams To: Arnd Bergmann Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:5345 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758776Ab0DVVDx (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Apr 2010 17:03:53 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201004222136.50397.arnd@arndb.de> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: * Arnd Bergmann (arnd@arndb.de) wrote: > On Thursday 22 April 2010 21:02:30 Chris Wright wrote: > > * Arnd Bergmann (arnd@arndb.de) wrote: > > > On Thursday 22 April 2010 19:47:29 Chris Wright wrote: > > > > OK, wasn't clear if you meant that or simply 100% dedicating the interface > > > > via something like virtio. The add_vf() idea, while neat, doesn't really > > > > match how VF's are allocated. > > > > > > But we still need something like that for allocating queues in VMDq > > > and similar cases where we do not have pass-through, right? > > > > Iff we care about VMDq w/out SR-IOV (since SR-IOV hardware is VMDq > > capable and already has a queue-pair + interrupt + net_dev), yes. > > > > And it's not just VMDq, it's any multi-queue card that can do mac/vlan > > filter in hw + header/data split (for direct data DMA to guest buffers). > > Right, that's what I meant by VMDq. Do we have a better term to describe > this class of devices, i.e. VMDq and other cards that also have the > features you listed? I don't have a good term. Some of these devices can already surface multiple netdevs. thanks, -chris