On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 10:32:06PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: > >> >> > With regards to alternate names for 'active', you suggested 'stolen', but i > >> >> > am not too happy with it. > >> >> > netvsc uses vf_netdev, are you OK with this? Or another option is 'passthru' > >> >> No. The netdev could be any netdevice. It does not have to be a "VF". > >> >> I think "stolen" is quite appropriate since it describes the modus > >> >> operandi. The bypass master steals some netdevice according to some > >> >> match. > >> >> > >> >> But I don't insist on "stolen". Just sounds right. > >> > > >> >We are adding VIRTIO_NET_F_BACKUP as a new feature bit to enable this feature, So i think > >> >'backup' name is consistent. > >> > >> It perhaps makes sense from the view of virtio device. However, as I > >> described couple of times, for master/slave device the name "backup" is > >> highly misleading. > > > >virtio is the backup. You are supposed to use another > >(typically passthrough) device, if that fails use virtio. > >It does seem appropriate to me. If you like, we can > >change that to "standby". Active I don't like either. "main"? > > Sounds much better, yes. Excuse me, which of the versions are better in your eyes? > > > > >In fact would failover be better than bypass? > > Also, much better. > _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
