From: Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 22:48:26 +0100 > On 01/29/2016 10:45 PM, Jay Vosburgh wrote: >> Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> On 01/25/2016 05:24 PM, Bjørnar Ness wrote: >>>> As subject says, 802.3ad bonding is not working with virtio network model. >>>> >>>> The only errors I see is: >>>> >>>> No 802.3ad response from the link partner for any adapters in the bond. >>>> >>>> Dumping the network traffic shows that no LACP packets are sent from the >>>> host running with virtio driver, changing to for example e1000 solves >>>> this problem >>>> with no configuration changes. >>>> >>>> Is this a known problem? >>>> >>> [Including bonding maintainers for comments] >>> >>> Hi, >>> Here's a workaround patch for virtio_net devices that "cheats" the >>> duplex test (which is the actual problem). I've tested this locally >>> and it works for me. >>> I'd let the others comment on the implementation, there're other signs >>> that can be used to distinguish a virtio_net device so I'm open to suggestions. >>> Also feedback if this is at all acceptable would be appreciated. >> >> Should virtio instead provide an arbitrary speed and full duplex >> to ethtool, as veth does? >> >> Creating a magic whitelist of devices deep inside the 802.3ad >> implementation seems less desirable. >> > TBH, I absolutely agree. In fact here's what we've been doing: > add set_settings which allows the user to set any speed/duplex > and get_settings of course to retrieve that. This is also useful > for testing other stuff that requires speed and duplex, not only > for the bonding case. I also agree. Having a whitelist is just rediculous. There should be a default speed/duplex setting for such devices as well. We can pick one that will be use universally for these kinds of devices. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
