[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] [PATCH] content: Introduce VIRTIO_NET_F_STANDBY feature
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:03:11AM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 18:37:42 +0300 > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 09:44:50AM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > > On Thu, 19 Jul 2018 14:29:40 -0700 > > > Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala@intel.com> wrote: > > > > > > > VIRTIO_NET_F_STANDBY feature enables hypervisor to indicate virtio_net > > > > driver to act as a standby for another device with the same MAC address. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala@intel.com > > > > --- > > > > content.tex | 10 ++++++++++ > > > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) > > > > > @@ -2636,6 +2639,13 @@ If the driver negotiates VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU, it MUST NOT transmit packets of > > > > size exceeding the value of \field{mtu} (plus low level ethernet header length) > > > > with \field{gso_type} NONE or ECN. > > > > > > > > +A driver SHOULD negotiate VIRTIO_NET_F_STANDBY feature if the device offers it. > > > > > > I'm not sure that this is the right section of the spec. Maybe we need > > > a new normative driver section for "cross-device features" (better > > > names wanted :), and the same for devices? > > > > You mean if we ever extend this to non-network devices? > > This is a network specific feature bit so what makes > > it a cross-device feature? > > No, the network device location is alright. But it is in a section that > deals with how the config space etc. is handled, and I'm not sure > whether it fits well with the other statements in there. Not a major > gripe, though. > > > > > > > + > > > > +If the driver negotiates VIRTIO_NET_F_STANDBY, it should act as a standby > > > for > > > > +another device with the same MAC address when available. The hypervisor can > > > > +hot-plug a primary device with same MAC address if the feature is successfully > > > > +negotiated with the driver. > > > > > > I don't think you should add implementation details like hotplugging > > > into the spec. > > > > > > What about: > > > > > > "If the driver negotiates VIRTIO_NET_F_STANDBY, the device MAY act as a > > > standby device for another device with the same MAC address, the > > > 'failover device'. > > > > I find the name "failover device" confusing. Linux came up with > > names primary and standby. > > "...the device MAY act as a standby device for a primary device with > the same MAC address." > > ? Right. But I agree we need a section that defines failover operation. -- MST
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]