Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 12:59:04AM CET, stephen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >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. Why do you mind? All would be the same, there would be just another netdevice unused by the vm user (same as the vf netdev). _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
