From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/3] Enable virtio_net to act as a backup for a passthru device Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 23:30:12 +0200 Message-ID: <20180227232437-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <1518804682-16881-1-git-send-email-sridhar.samudrala@intel.com> <20180220104224.GA2031@nanopsycho> <20180227084959.GB2005@nanopsycho> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Alexander Duyck , Sridhar Samudrala , Stephen Hemminger , David Miller , Netdev , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org, "Brandeburg, Jesse" , "Duyck, Alexander H" , Jakub Kicinski , Jason Wang , Siwei Liu To: Jiri Pirko Return-path: Sender: List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180227084959.GB2005@nanopsycho> List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 09:49:59AM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: > Now the question is: is it possible to merge the demands you have and > the generic needs I described into a single solution? From what I see, > that would be quite hard/impossible. So at the end, I think that we have > to end-up with 2 solutions: > 1) virtio_net, netvsc in-driver bonding - very limited, stupid, 0config > solution that works for all (no matter what OS you use in VM) > 2) team/bond solution with assistance of preferably userspace daemon > getting info from baremetal. This is not 0config, but minimal config > - user just have to define this "magic bonding" should be on. > This covers all possible usecases, including multiple VFs, RDMA, etc. > > Thoughts? I think I agree. This RFC is trying to do 1 above. Looks like we now all agree 1 and 2 are not exclusive, both have place in the kernel. Is that right? -- MST