From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 2/4] net: Introduce generic bypass module Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 07:08:58 +0300 Message-ID: <20180419070752-mutt-send-email-mst__1721.65464978224$1524110839$gmane$org@kernel.org> References: <1523386790-12396-1-git-send-email-sridhar.samudrala@intel.com> <1523386790-12396-3-git-send-email-sridhar.samudrala@intel.com> <20180411155127.GQ2028@nanopsycho> <6a8c1ff5-153a-e40a-91b3-48532b8d3a38@intel.com> <20180418092515.GB1989@nanopsycho> <20180418191315.GA1922@nanopsycho> <20180418222309-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20180418203206.GC1922@nanopsycho> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180418203206.GC1922@nanopsycho> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Jiri Pirko Cc: alexander.h.duyck@intel.com, virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org, kubakici@wp.pl, "Samudrala, Sridhar" , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, loseweigh@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 10:32:06PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: > >> >> > With regards to alternate names for 'active', you suggested 'stolen', but i > >> >> > am not too happy with it. > >> >> > netvsc uses vf_netdev, are you OK with this? Or another option is 'passthru' > >> >> No. The netdev could be any netdevice. It does not have to be a "VF". > >> >> I think "stolen" is quite appropriate since it describes the modus > >> >> operandi. The bypass master steals some netdevice according to some > >> >> match. > >> >> > >> >> But I don't insist on "stolen". Just sounds right. > >> > > >> >We are adding VIRTIO_NET_F_BACKUP as a new feature bit to enable this feature, So i think > >> >'backup' name is consistent. > >> > >> It perhaps makes sense from the view of virtio device. However, as I > >> described couple of times, for master/slave device the name "backup" is > >> highly misleading. > > > >virtio is the backup. You are supposed to use another > >(typically passthrough) device, if that fails use virtio. > >It does seem appropriate to me. If you like, we can > >change that to "standby". Active I don't like either. "main"? > > Sounds much better, yes. Excuse me, which of the versions are better in your eyes? > > > > >In fact would failover be better than bypass? > > Also, much better. >