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
