From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: regression: UFO removal breaks kvm live migration Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2017 20:32:31 +0900 (KST) Message-ID: <20171108.203231.310648804772108001.davem@davemloft.net> References: <446b71fc-6ffc-2bb0-bae1-69424805de91@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=iso-2022-jp Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com, mkubecek@suse.cz, netdev@vger.kernel.org, mst@redhat.com, vyasevic@redhat.com To: jasowang@redhat.com Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([184.105.139.130]:39808 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751826AbdKHLch (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Nov 2017 06:32:37 -0500 In-Reply-To: <446b71fc-6ffc-2bb0-bae1-69424805de91@redhat.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Jason Wang Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 17:25:48 +0900 > On 2017年11月08日 17:08, Willem de Bruijn wrote: >> That won't help in the short term. I'm still reading up to see if >> there are >> any other options besides reimplement or advertise-but-drop, such as >> an implicit trigger that would make the guest renegotiate. It's >> unlikely, but >> worth a look.. > > Yes, this looks hard. And even if we can manage to do this, it looks > an overkill since it will impact all guest after migration. Like Willem I would much prefer "advertise-but-drop" if it works. In the long term feature renegotiation triggers are a must. There is no way for us to remove features otherwise. In my opinion this will even make migrations more powerful.