On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 09:49:59AM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: > Now the question is: is it possible to merge the demands you have and > the generic needs I described into a single solution? From what I see, > that would be quite hard/impossible. So at the end, I think that we have > to end-up with 2 solutions: > 1) virtio_net, netvsc in-driver bonding - very limited, stupid, 0config > solution that works for all (no matter what OS you use in VM) > 2) team/bond solution with assistance of preferably userspace daemon > getting info from baremetal. This is not 0config, but minimal config > - user just have to define this "magic bonding" should be on. > This covers all possible usecases, including multiple VFs, RDMA, etc. > > Thoughts? I think I agree. This RFC is trying to do 1 above. Looks like we now all agree 1 and 2 are not exclusive, both have place in the kernel. Is that right? -- MST _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
