Re: [PATCH v7 net-next 4/4] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling code to use the failover framework

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 07:04:06PM CEST, stephen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>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.

I don't understand how you can break anything by exposing
just-another-netdevice. If you break it, it is already broken...

And how you can break anything in userspace by doing refactoring inside
the kernel is puzzling me even more...
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization



[Index of Archives]     [KVM Development]     [Libvirt Development]     [Libvirt Users]     [CentOS Virtualization]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux