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

Re: [libvirt] [libvirt PATCH] Port-profile ID support using IFLA_VF_PORT_PROFILE netlink msg



* Scott Feldman (scofeldm cisco com) wrote:
> On 5/10/10 11:57 AM, "Stefan Berger" <stefanb us ibm com> wrote:
> 
> > libvir-list-bounces redhat com wrote on 05/10/2010 02:35:49 PM:
> > 
> > 
> >> 
> >> Correct, IFLA_VF_PORT_PROFILE is not in the kernel yet.  The kernel
> >> patch is be discussed on the kernel netdev mailing list.  The most recent
> >> discussion is on ways to merge VDP and CDCP into what I've posted for
> >> IFLA_VF_PORT_PROFILE.
> >> 
> >> I'll send out another libvirt patch once the kernel discussions are
> >> final.
> > 
> > I suppose you will provide the libvirt patch only for what seems to be
> > Cisco technology support.
> 
> I can only test with our production equipment setup, so I'm hesitant to
> include additions to the patch for VDP/CDCP which I can't test.
> 
> > Now the slight differences in technology
> > that we seem to try to support here are reflected in the parameters that
> > go into the XML and end up in the netlink messages. Any way to
> > consolidate that?
> 
> I doesn't appear we'll be able to consolidate the parameters between the two
> technologies based on what I've seen from Arnd's latest patch on the kernel
> mailing list.  The latest proposal is to define a single netlink msg that
> can handle two disjoint sets of parameters.  If there is no way for further
> consolidation, it probably makes more senses to have two different netlink
> msgs, one for each parameter set.

Right, and would point to a flag to differentiate the two in xml too.

thanks,
-chris


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