On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 13:30:12 -0800 Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Again, I undertand your motivation. Yet I don't like your solution. > > But if the decision is made to do this in-driver bonding. I would like > > to see it baing done some generic way: > > 1) share the same "in-driver bonding core" code with netvsc > > put to net/core. > > 2) the "in-driver bonding core" will strictly limit the functionality, > > like active-backup mode only, one vf, one backup, vf netdev type > > check (so noone could enslave a tap or anything else) > > If user would need something more, he should employ team/bond. Sharing would be good, but netvsc world would really like to only have one visible network device. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
