On 08/25/2009 05:22 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > > I think 2.6.32 is pushing it. 2.6.32 is pushing it, but we need to push it. > I think some time is needed to flush out the userspace interface. In > particular, I don't think Mark's comments have been adequately > addressed. If a version were merged without GSO support, some > mechanism to do feature detection would be needed in the userspace API. I don't see any point in merging without gso (unless it beats userspace with gso, which I don't think will happen). In any case we'll need feature negotiation. > I think this is likely going to be needed regardless. I also think > the tap compatibility suggestion would simplify the consumption of > this in userspace. What about veth pairs? > I'd like some time to look at get_state/set_state ioctl()s along with > dirty tracking support. It's a much better model for live migration > IMHO. My preference is ring proxying. Not we'll need ring proxying (or at least event proxying) for non-MSI guests. > I think so more thorough benchmarking would be good too. In > particular, netperf/iperf runs would be nice. Definitely. -- I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this signature is too narrow to contain. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
