From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Samudrala, Sridhar" Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 net-next 4/4] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling code to use the failover framework Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 08:46:48 -0700 Message-ID: <9cfdc30f-6018-499e-80a8-4447601944a4__19919.5987931036$1524239099$gmane$org@intel.com> 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"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20180420082802.6ca37e4c@xeon-e3> Content-Language: en-US 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, mst@redhat.com, kubakici@wp.pl, netdev@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, loseweigh@gmail.com, davem@davemloft.net List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org On 4/20/2018 8:28 AM, 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, 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 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. failover_ops are specifically added to support both 2-netdev and 3-netdev models This patch doesn't change netvsc model. It still keeps its 2-netdev model. From netvsc, point of view it is just moving some code from netvsc to the failover module and also i think the eventhandling and getbymac routines are more optimal. > Plus, DPDK is now dependent on existing model.