Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 11:22:36PM CET, loseweigh@xxxxxxxxx wrote: [...] >>> >>> No, that's not what I was talking about of course. I thought you >>> mentioned the upgrade scenario this patch would like to address is to >>> use the bypass interface "to take the place of the original virtio, >>> and get udev to rename the bypass to what the original virtio_net >>> was". That is one of the possible upgrade paths for sure. However the >>> upgrade path I was seeking is to use the bypass interface to take the >>> place of original VF interface while retaining the name and network >>> configs, which generally can be done simply with kernel upgrade. It >>> would become limiting as this patch makes the bypass interface share >>> the same virtio pci device with virito backup. Can this bypass >>> interface be made general to take place of any pci device other than >>> virtio-net? This will be more helpful as the cloud users who has >>> existing setup on VF interface don't have to recreate it on virtio-net >>> and VF separately again. How that could work? If you have the VF netdev with all configuration including IPs and routes and whatever - now you want to do migration so you add virtio_net and do some weird in-driver bonding with it. But then, VF disappears and the VF netdev with that and also all configuration it had. I don't think this scenario is valid. >> >> >> Yes. This sounds interesting. Looks like you want an existing VM image with >> VF only configuration to get transparent live migration support by adding >> virtio_net with BACKUP feature. We may need another feature bit to switch >> between these 2 options. > >Yes, that's what I was thinking about. I have been building something >like this before, and would like to get back after merging with your >patch. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
