From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 net-next 4/4] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling code to use the failover framework Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 18:43:54 +0300 Message-ID: <20180420183505-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <1524188524-28411-1-git-send-email-sridhar.samudrala@intel.com> <1524188524-28411-5-git-send-email-sridhar.samudrala@intel.com> <20180420082802.6ca37e4c@xeon-e3> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Sridhar Samudrala , 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, jiri@resnulli.us To: Stephen Hemminger Return-path: Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:42552 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755390AbeDTPoB (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Apr 2018 11:44:01 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180420082802.6ca37e4c@xeon-e3> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 08:28:02AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 18:42:04 -0700 > Sridhar Samudrala wrote: > > > Use the registration/notification framework supported by the generic > > failover infrastructure. > > > > Signed-off-by: Sridhar Samudrala > > Do what you want to other devices but leave netvsc alone. > Adding these failover ops does not reduce the code size, drivers/net/hyperv/Kconfig | 1 + drivers/net/hyperv/hyperv_net.h | 2 + drivers/net/hyperv/netvsc_drv.c | 208 ++++++++++------------------------------ 3 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 156 deletions(-) 100 lines gone. > and really is > no benefit. The netvsc device driver needs to be backported to several > other distributions and doing this makes that harder. > > I will NAK patches to change to common code for netvsc Wow. > especially the > three device model. AFAIK these patches do not change netvsc to a three device model. > MS worked hard with distro vendors to support transparent > mode, ans we really can't have a new model; That's why Sridhar worked hard to preserve a 2 device model for netvsc. > or do backport. > > Plus, DPDK is now dependent on existing model. DPDK does the kernel bypass thing, doesn't it? Why does the kernel care? -- MST