On 08/08/2012 01:21 PM, Nishank Trivedi (nistrive) wrote: > On 8/7/12 8:15 PM, "Laine Stump" <laine@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Yes, I believe you are correct that virNetDevSetOnline is being called >> with the wrong device name (I could be wrong though - is there maybe >> some odd rule that the PF must be UP before the VFs will be up? > PF should be UP prior to VF only if there is some proxy'ing or some > control data being sent by PF on behalf of VF. Same could be true for > bringing VF down. > >> In case >> case, we certainly shouldn't be setting the PF to IFF_DOWN). But in the >> case of PCI passthrough, does it even need to be called at all? > Not for PF for sure. While VF is getting disassociated with port profile, > VF interface still needs to be brought down. So virNetDevSetOnline should > be passed VF interface, if vf >= 0. > >> Cc'ing Roopa in case she missed this in all the other traffic. > Invalid email id, cc'ing Christian instead. Yes, I didn't realize until I got the bounce from that mail that Roopa had moved. (also didn't pay attention to the fact that you are at Cisco, so would have contacted her anyway :-) It sounds like you guys have a good understanding of the details, and the proper setup to test it with 802.1Qbh, so please write up a patch and send it in. I'll review it and test it here too (although I can only test netdev PCI passthrough *without* 802.1Qbh). Thanks for finding the root of the problem! -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list