Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 2/4] net: Introduce generic bypass module

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 10:32:06PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >> >> > With regards to alternate names for 'active', you suggested 'stolen', but i
> >> >> > am not too happy with it.
> >> >> > netvsc uses vf_netdev, are you OK with this? Or another option is 'passthru'
> >> >> No. The netdev could be any netdevice. It does not have to be a "VF".
> >> >> I think "stolen" is quite appropriate since it describes the modus
> >> >> operandi. The bypass master steals some netdevice according to some
> >> >> match.
> >> >> 
> >> >> But I don't insist on "stolen". Just sounds right.
> >> >
> >> >We are adding VIRTIO_NET_F_BACKUP as a new feature bit to enable this feature, So i think
> >> >'backup' name is consistent.
> >> 
> >> It perhaps makes sense from the view of virtio device. However, as I
> >> described couple of times, for master/slave device the name "backup" is
> >> highly misleading.
> >
> >virtio is the backup. You are supposed to use another
> >(typically passthrough) device, if that fails use virtio.
> >It does seem appropriate to me. If you like, we can
> >change that to "standby".  Active I don't like either. "main"?
> 
> Sounds much better, yes.

Excuse me, which of the versions are better in your eyes?


> 
> >
> >In fact would failover be better than bypass?
> 
> Also, much better.
>