Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 06:08:58AM CEST, m...@redhat.com wrote: >On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 10:32:06PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> >> >> > With regards to alternate names for 'active', you suggested >> >> >> > 'stolen', but i >> >> >> > am not too happy with it. >> >> >> > netvsc uses vf_netdev, are you OK with this? Or another option is >> >> >> > 'passthru' >> >> >> No. The netdev could be any netdevice. It does not have to be a "VF". >> >> >> I think "stolen" is quite appropriate since it describes the modus >> >> >> operandi. The bypass master steals some netdevice according to some >> >> >> match. >> >> >> >> >> >> But I don't insist on "stolen". Just sounds right. >> >> > >> >> >We are adding VIRTIO_NET_F_BACKUP as a new feature bit to enable this >> >> >feature, So i think >> >> >'backup' name is consistent. >> >> >> >> It perhaps makes sense from the view of virtio device. However, as I >> >> described couple of times, for master/slave device the name "backup" is >> >> highly misleading. >> > >> >virtio is the backup. You are supposed to use another >> >(typically passthrough) device, if that fails use virtio. >> >It does seem appropriate to me. If you like, we can >> >change that to "standby". Active I don't like either. "main"? >> >> Sounds much better, yes. > >Excuse me, which of the versions are better in your eyes?
standby is okay. main/primary is fine too. > > >> >> > >> >In fact would failover be better than bypass? >> >> Also, much better. >>
