Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 03:32:44PM CET, mst@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: >On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 08:08:39AM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 10:41:49PM CET, kubakici@xxxxx wrote: >> >On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 13:16:21 -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote: >> >> Basically we need some sort of PCI or PCIe topology mapping for the >> >> devices that can be translated into something we can communicate over >> >> the communication channel. >> > >> >Hm. This is probably a completely stupid idea, but if we need to >> >start marshalling configuration requests/hints maybe the entire problem >> >could be solved by opening a netlink socket from hypervisor? Even make >> >teamd run on the hypervisor side... >> >> Interesting. That would be more trickier then just to fwd 1 genetlink >> socket to the hypervisor. >> >> Also, I think that the solution should handle multiple guest oses. What >> I'm thinking about is some generic bonding description passed over some >> communication channel into vm. The vm either use it for configuration, >> or ignores it if it is not smart enough/updated enough. > >For sure, we could build virtio-bond to pass that info to guests. What do you mean by "virtio-bond". virtio_net extension? > >Such an advisory mechanism would not be a replacement for the mandatory >passthrough fallback flag proposed, but OTOH it's much more flexible. > >-- >MST _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
