On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 18:00:58 +0200 Jiri Pirko <jiri@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 05:28:02PM CEST, stephen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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, and really is > >no benefit. The netvsc device driver needs to be backported to several > >other distributions and doing this makes that harder. > > We should not care about the backport burden when we are trying to make > things right. And things are not right. The current netvsc approach is > just plain wrong shortcut. It should have been done in a generic way > from the very beginning. We are just trying to fix this situation. > > Moreover, I believe that part of the fix is to convert netvsc to 3 > netdev solution too. 2 netdev model is wrong. > > > > > >I will NAK patches to change to common code for netvsc especially the > >three device model. MS worked hard with distro vendors to support transparent > >mode, ans we really can't have a new model; or do backport. > > > >Plus, DPDK is now dependent on existing model. > > Sorry, but nobody here cares about dpdk or other similar oddities. The network device model is a userspace API, and DPDK is a userspace application. You can't go breaking userspace even if you don't like the application. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
