On 2/9/2012 9:40 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:36:47 -0800 > John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> But the device features makes it easy for user space to learn that the device >> supports this sort of offload. Now if all SR-IOV devices support this then it >> doesn't matter but I thought there were SR-IOV devices that didn't do any >> switching? I'll dig through the SR-IOV drivers to check there are not too >> many of them. > > If user space needs to know then the OS is not designed properly. > The purpose of the network device is to abstract all those details, and more and more > of them are bleeding through. This makes writing management applications harder and makes > things dependent on features that may or may not be present. The best design is when > the change is invisible. > Agreed. >> By netlink_notifier do you mean adding a notifier_block and using atomic_notifier_call_chain() >> probably in rtnl_notify()? Then drivers could register with the notifier chain with >> atomic_notifier_chain_register() and receive the events correctly. Or did I miss >> some notifier chain that already exists? > > Yes. that is what I mean. The callbacks you need may or may not already be present. OK thanks I'll put together an update here shortly. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
