From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 net-next 4/4] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling code to use the failover framework Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 18:43:54 +0300 Message-ID: <20180420183505-mutt-send-email-mst__2903.28774503923$1524238924$gmane$org@kernel.org> References: <1524188524-28411-1-git-send-email-sridhar.samudrala@intel.com> <1524188524-28411-5-git-send-email-sridhar.samudrala@intel.com> <20180420082802.6ca37e4c@xeon-e3> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180420082802.6ca37e4c@xeon-e3> 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: Stephen Hemminger Cc: alexander.h.duyck@intel.com, virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org, jiri@resnulli.us, kubakici@wp.pl, Sridhar Samudrala , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, loseweigh@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 08:28:02AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 18:42:04 -0700 > Sridhar Samudrala wrote: > > > Use the registration/notification framework supported by the generic > > failover infrastructure. > > > > Signed-off-by: Sridhar Samudrala > > Do what you want to other devices but leave netvsc alone. > Adding these failover ops does not reduce the code size, drivers/net/hyperv/Kconfig | 1 + drivers/net/hyperv/hyperv_net.h | 2 + drivers/net/hyperv/netvsc_drv.c | 208 ++++++++++------------------------------ 3 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 156 deletions(-) 100 lines gone. > and really is > no benefit. The netvsc device driver needs to be backported to several > other distributions and doing this makes that harder. > > I will NAK patches to change to common code for netvsc Wow. > especially the > three device model. AFAIK these patches do not change netvsc to a three device model. > MS worked hard with distro vendors to support transparent > mode, ans we really can't have a new model; That's why Sridhar worked hard to preserve a 2 device model for netvsc. > or do backport. > > Plus, DPDK is now dependent on existing model. DPDK does the kernel bypass thing, doesn't it? Why does the kernel care? -- MST