From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58839) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gUeFs-0007qX-Ir for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2018 15:58:49 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gUeFr-00022E-TX for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2018 15:58:48 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:51704) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gUeFr-0001yS-LQ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2018 15:58:47 -0500 Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2018 15:58:45 -0500 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20181205155739-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <20181025140631.634922-1-sameeh@daynix.com> <20181205171818.GA1136@redhat.com> <154404147264.6063.14869520867110106084@sif> <154404267804.6063.6272296350458255377@sif> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <154404267804.6063.6272296350458255377@sif> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 0/2] Attempt to implement the standby feature for assigned network devices List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Michael Roth Cc: Daniel =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=2E_Berrang=E9?= , Sameeh Jubran , Yan Vugenfirer , Jason Wang , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Eduardo Habkost On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 02:44:38PM -0600, Michael Roth wrote: > > So how important is it that setting F_STANDBY cap doesn't break older > > guests? If the idea is to support live migration with VFs then aren't > > we still dead in the water if the guest boots okay but doesn't have > > the requisite functionality to be migrated later? Shouldn't that all > > Well, I guess that's not really the scenario with this approach. Instead > they'd run with degraded network performance but could still at least be > migrated. Thanks, that's a good summary. And instead of degraded we call it un-accelerated. -- MST