From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jiri Pirko Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 2/4] net: Introduce generic bypass module Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 09:22:05 +0200 Message-ID: <20180419072205.GB2048@nanopsycho> References: <1523386790-12396-1-git-send-email-sridhar.samudrala@intel.com> <1523386790-12396-3-git-send-email-sridhar.samudrala@intel.com> <20180411155127.GQ2028@nanopsycho> <6a8c1ff5-153a-e40a-91b3-48532b8d3a38@intel.com> <20180418092515.GB1989@nanopsycho> <20180418191315.GA1922@nanopsycho> <20180418222309-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20180418203206.GC1922@nanopsycho> <20180419070752-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "Samudrala, Sridhar" , stephen@networkplumber.org, davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org, jesse.brandeburg@intel.com, alexander.h.duyck@intel.com, kubakici@wp.pl, jasowang@redhat.com, loseweigh@gmail.com To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Return-path: Received: from mail-wr0-f176.google.com ([209.85.128.176]:37916 "EHLO mail-wr0-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750732AbeDSHWH (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Apr 2018 03:22:07 -0400 Received: by mail-wr0-f176.google.com with SMTP id h3-v6so11087116wrh.5 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2018 00:22:07 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180419070752-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 06:08:58AM CEST, mst@redhat.com wrote: >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? standby is okay. main/primary is fine too. > > >> >> > >> >In fact would failover be better than bypass? >> >> Also, much better. >>