On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 08:28:02AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 18:42:04 -0700 > Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Use the registration/notification framework supported by the generic > > failover infrastructure. > > > > Signed-off-by: Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala@xxxxxxxxx> > > Do what you want to other devices but leave netvsc alone. > Adding these failover ops does not reduce the code size, drivers/net/hyperv/Kconfig | 1 + drivers/net/hyperv/hyperv_net.h | 2 + drivers/net/hyperv/netvsc_drv.c | 208 ++++++++++------------------------------ 3 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 156 deletions(-) 100 lines gone. > and really is > no benefit. The netvsc device driver needs to be backported to several > other distributions and doing this makes that harder. > > I will NAK patches to change to common code for netvsc Wow. > especially the > three device model. AFAIK these patches do not change netvsc to a three device model. > MS worked hard with distro vendors to support transparent > mode, ans we really can't have a new model; That's why Sridhar worked hard to preserve a 2 device model for netvsc. > or do backport. > > Plus, DPDK is now dependent on existing model. DPDK does the kernel bypass thing, doesn't it? Why does the kernel care? -- MST _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
