On 10.12.2009, at 21:20, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Thursday 10 December 2009 19:14:28 Alexander Graf wrote: >>> This is something I also have been thinking about, but it is not what >>> I was referring to above. I think it would be good to keep the three >>> cases (macvlan, VMDq, SR-IOV) as similar as possible from the user >>> perspective, so using macvlan as an infrastructure for all of them >>> sounds reasonable to me. >> >> Oh, so you'd basically do -net vt-d,if=eth0 and the rest would >> automatically work? That's a pretty slick idea! > > I was only referring to how they get set up under the covers, e.g. > creating the virtual device, configuring the MAC address etc, not > the qemu side, but that would probably make sense as well. > > Or even better, qemu should probably not even know the difference > between macvlan and VT-d. In both cases, it would open a macvtap > file, but for VT-d adapters, the macvlan infrastructure can > use hardware support, much in the way that VLAN tagging gets > offloaded automatically to the hardware. Well, vt-d means we use PCI passthrough. But it probably makes sense to have a -net bridge,if=eth0 that automatically uses whatever is around (pci passthrough, macvtap, anthony's bridge script, etc.). Of course we should leverage vmdq for macvtap whenever available :-). Alex _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
