Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 07:04:06PM CEST, step...@networkplumber.org wrote: >On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 18:00:58 +0200 >Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us> wrote: > >> Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 05:28:02PM CEST, step...@networkplumber.org wrote: >> >On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 18:42:04 -0700 >> >Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudr...@intel.com> wrote: >> > >> >> Use the registration/notification framework supported by the generic >> >> failover infrastructure. >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudr...@intel.com> >> > >> >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...
