On 3/21/19 9:52 PM, Laine Stump wrote:
On 3/21/19 8:58 PM, Cole Robinson wrote:
On 3/19/19 8:46 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
In the case of a network with forward=bridge, which has a bridge device
listed, we are capable of setting bandwidth limits but fail to call the
function to register them.
Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
src/network/bridge_driver.c | 39
++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
One thing missing is class_id XML reading in
virDomainActualNetDefParseXML, that needs to be adjusted for TYPE_BRIDGE
With that, code wise I'll give:
Reviewed-by: Cole Robinson <crobinso@xxxxxxxxxx>
but I can't really comment on if there's any hidden pitfalls.
I seem to recall that Michal omitted bandwidth support on those types
of networks for a reason (floor can't be supported because there isn't
a single egress that we have exclusive control over, or something like
that), but he should probably give the definitive response to that.
Hmm, virNetdevBandwidthParse() appears to support it, while explicitly
prohibiting floor, so maybe the skipping of class_id in the actualNetDef
parse was already a bug?
But I'd
say push it and we can figure it out in git master
- Cole
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
