From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jiri Pirko Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/3] Enable virtio_net to act as a backup for a passthru device Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 16:11:31 +0100 Message-ID: <20180228151131.GF19654@nanopsycho> References: <1518804682-16881-1-git-send-email-sridhar.samudrala@intel.com> <20180220104224.GA2031@nanopsycho> <20180227084959.GB2005@nanopsycho> <20180227134149.2bff667e@cakuba.netronome.com> <20180228070839.GA19654@nanopsycho> <20180228160647-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Duyck, Alexander H" , virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org, Jakub Kicinski , Sridhar Samudrala , Alexander Duyck , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, Siwei Liu , Netdev , David Miller To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180228160647-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 03:32:44PM CET, mst@redhat.com wrote: >On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 08:08:39AM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 10:41:49PM CET, kubakici@wp.pl wrote: >> >On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 13:16:21 -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote: >> >> Basically we need some sort of PCI or PCIe topology mapping for the >> >> devices that can be translated into something we can communicate over >> >> the communication channel. >> > >> >Hm. This is probably a completely stupid idea, but if we need to >> >start marshalling configuration requests/hints maybe the entire problem >> >could be solved by opening a netlink socket from hypervisor? Even make >> >teamd run on the hypervisor side... >> >> Interesting. That would be more trickier then just to fwd 1 genetlink >> socket to the hypervisor. >> >> Also, I think that the solution should handle multiple guest oses. What >> I'm thinking about is some generic bonding description passed over some >> communication channel into vm. The vm either use it for configuration, >> or ignores it if it is not smart enough/updated enough. > >For sure, we could build virtio-bond to pass that info to guests. What do you mean by "virtio-bond". virtio_net extension? > >Such an advisory mechanism would not be a replacement for the mandatory >passthrough fallback flag proposed, but OTOH it's much more flexible. > >-- >MST