On Fri, 2016-10-21 at 16:09 -0400, Russell Bryant wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Stephen Finucane <step...@that.guru>
> wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Stephen Finucane <step...@that.guru>

[snip]

> > +The advantage of hardware integration is not only performance
> > within
> > +virtualized environments. If physical switches also expose the
> > Open vSwitch
> > +control abstractions, both bare-metal and virtualized hosting
> > environments can
> > +be managed using the same mechanism for automated network control.
> > +
> > +In many ways, Open vSwitch targets a different point in the design
> > space than
> > +previous hypervisor networking stacks, focusing on the need for
> > automated and
> > +dynamic network control in large-scale Linux-based virtualization
> > environments.
> > +
> > +The goal with Open vSwitch is to keep the in-kernel code as small
> > as possible
> > +(as is necessary for performance) and to re-use existing
> > subsystems when
> > +applicable (for example Open vSwitch uses the existing QoS stack).
> > As of Linux
> > +3.3, Open vSwitch is included as a part of the kernel and
> > packaging for the
> > +userspace utilities are available on most popular distributions.
> 
> These last two paragraphs were not part of the "hardware integration"
> section in the original doc.  They were the closing paragraphs of the
> document.  I haven't thought of a good heading for them, though. 
> Maybe "design"?  Thoughts?

Good catch. Totally up to you, though. I'd suggest "conclusion" or
"summary", but I'm also fine with "design".

Stephen
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

Reply via email to