Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 02:18:12AM CET, mst@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: >On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 05:02:18PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: >> On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 08:19:24 +0100 >> Jiri Pirko <jiri@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > 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). >> > >> >> I mind because our requirement is no changes to userspace. >> No special udev rules, no bonding script, no setup. > >Agreed. It is mostly fine from this point of view, except that you need >to know to skip the slaves. Maybe we could look at some kind of >trick e.g. pretending link is down for slaves? :O Another hack. Please, don't. > >> Things like cloudinit running on current distro's expect to see a single >> eth0. The VF device show up can also be an issue because distro's have >> stupid rules like Network Manager trying to start DHCP on every interface. >> We deal with that now by doing stuff like udev rules to get it to stop >> but that is still causing user errors. So that means that with an extra netdev for "virtio_net bypass" you will face exactly the same problems. Should not be an issue for you then. > >So the ideal of a single net device isn't achieved by netvsc. > >Since you have scripts to skip the PT device, can't they >hind the PV slave too? How do they identify the device to skip? > >I agree it would be nice to have a way to hide the extra netdev >from userspace. "A hidden netdevice", hmm. I believe that instead of doing hacks like this, we should fix userspace to treat particular netdevices correctly. > >The benefit of the separation is that each slave device can >be configured with e.g. its own native ethtool commands for >optimum performance. > >-- >MST _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
