From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Friesen Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] discussion questions: SR-IOV, virtualization, and bonding Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 17:15:28 -0600 Message-ID: <501B0A10.8030703@genband.com> References: <501AD33E.5090308@genband.com> <17679.1343939453@death.nxdomain> <501AFEAD.10001@genband.com> <501B0037.1010804@genband.com> <20421.1343948491@death.nxdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net" , netdev To: Jay Vosburgh Return-path: Received: from exprod7og124.obsmtp.com ([64.18.2.26]:46916 "EHLO exprod7og124.obsmtp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752609Ab2HBXPk (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Aug 2012 19:15:40 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20421.1343948491@death.nxdomain> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 08/02/2012 05:01 PM, Jay Vosburgh wrote: > Chris Friesen wrote: > Still, though, isn't "influence the guest's choice" pretty much > satisified by having the VF interface go carrier down in the guest when > the host wants it to? Or are you thinking about more fine grained than > that? That was the first thing we started looking at. It would actually be better technically (since it would use the back-channel between PF and VFs rather than needing an explicit virtual network link between host/guest) but it would require work in all the PF/VF drivers. We'd need to get support from all the driver maintainers. The main advantage of doing it in bonding is that we'd only need to modify the code in one place. Chris