From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jiri Pirko Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 net-next 4/4] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling code to use the failover framework Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 19:25:50 +0200 Message-ID: <20180423172550.GF3585@nanopsycho.orion> 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> <20180420160058.GB2150@nanopsycho.orion> <20180423100406.71b95f74@xeon-e3> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Sridhar Samudrala , mst@redhat.com, davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org, jesse.brandeburg@intel.com, alexander.h.duyck@intel.com, kubakici@wp.pl, jasowang@redhat.com, loseweigh@gmail.com To: Stephen Hemminger Return-path: Received: from mail-wr0-f193.google.com ([209.85.128.193]:44982 "EHLO mail-wr0-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932076AbeDWRZy (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Apr 2018 13:25:54 -0400 Received: by mail-wr0-f193.google.com with SMTP id o15-v6so43431099wro.11 for ; Mon, 23 Apr 2018 10:25:53 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180423100406.71b95f74@xeon-e3> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 07:04:06PM CEST, stephen@networkplumber.org wrote: >On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 18:00:58 +0200 >Jiri Pirko wrote: > >> Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 05:28:02PM CEST, stephen@networkplumber.org 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, 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...