* Scott Feldman (scofeldm@xxxxxxxxx) wrote: > On 5/10/10 11:57 AM, "Stefan Berger" <stefanb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > libvir-list-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx wrote on 05/10/2010 02:35:49 PM: > > > > > >> > >> Correct, IFLA_VF_PORT_PROFILE is not in the kernel yet. The kernel > >> patch is be discussed on the kernel netdev mailing list. The most recent > >> discussion is on ways to merge VDP and CDCP into what I've posted for > >> IFLA_VF_PORT_PROFILE. > >> > >> I'll send out another libvirt patch once the kernel discussions are > >> final. > > > > I suppose you will provide the libvirt patch only for what seems to be > > Cisco technology support. > > I can only test with our production equipment setup, so I'm hesitant to > include additions to the patch for VDP/CDCP which I can't test. > > > Now the slight differences in technology > > that we seem to try to support here are reflected in the parameters that > > go into the XML and end up in the netlink messages. Any way to > > consolidate that? > > I doesn't appear we'll be able to consolidate the parameters between the two > technologies based on what I've seen from Arnd's latest patch on the kernel > mailing list. The latest proposal is to define a single netlink msg that > can handle two disjoint sets of parameters. If there is no way for further > consolidation, it probably makes more senses to have two different netlink > msgs, one for each parameter set. Right, and would point to a flag to differentiate the two in xml too. thanks, -chris -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list