On 3/20/2017 3:00 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > There have been some discussions on this new PMD and it will be > discussed today in the techboard meeting. > > I would like to expose my view and summarize the solutions I have heard. > First it is important to remind that everyone agrees on the need for > this feature, i.e. masking the hotplug events by maintaining an ethdev > object even without real underlying device. > > 1/ > The proposal from Gaetan is to add a failsafe driver with 2 features: > * masking underlying device > * limited and small failover code to switch from a device > to another one, with the same centralized configuration > The latter feature makes think to the bonding driver, but it could be > kept limited without any intent of implementing real bonding features. > > 2/ > If we really want to merge failsafe and bonding features, we could > create a new bonding driver with centralized configuration. > The legacy bonding driver let each slave to be configured separately. > It is a different model and we should not mix them. > If one is better, it could be deprecated later. > > 3/ > It can be tried to implement the failsafe feature into the bonding > driver, as Neil suggests. > However, I am not sure it would work very well or would be easy to use. > > 4/ > We can implement only the failsafe feature as a PMD and use it to wrap > the slaves of the bonding driver. > So the order of link would be > bonding -> failsafe -> real device > In this model, failsafe can have only one slave and do not implement > the fail-over feature. >
Tech board decided [1] to "reconsider" the PMD for this release (17.08). So, lets start it J I think it is good idea to continue on top of above summary, is there a plan to how to proceed? Thanks, ferruh [1] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-March/061009.html
