Sent from my iPad

On 2014-12-16, at 下午2:54, "Armando M." <arma...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> Good questions. I'm also looking for the linux bridge MD, SRIOV MD...
> Who will be responsible for these drivers?
> 
> Excellent question. In my opinion, 'technology' specific but not vendor 
> specific MD (like SRIOV) should not be maintained by specific vendor. It 
> should be accessible for all interested parties for contribution.
> 
> I don't think that anyone is making the suggestion of making these drivers 
> develop in silos, but instead one of the objective is to allow them to evolve 
> more rapidly, and in the open, where anyone can participate.
>  
> 
> The OVS driver is maintained by Neutron community, vendor specific hardware 
> driver by vendor, SDN controllers driver by their own community or vendor. 
> But there are also other drivers like SRIOV, which are general for a lot of 
> vendor agonitsc backends, and can't be maintained by a certain 
> vendor/community.
> 
> Certain technologies, like the ones mentioned above may require specific 
> hardware; even though they may not be particularly associated with a specific 
> vendor, some sort of vendor support is indeed required, like 3rd party CI. 
> So, grouping them together under an hw-accelerated umbrella, or whichever 
> other name that sticks, may make sense long term should the number of drivers 
> really ramp up as hinted below.

There are also MD not related with hardware, like via-tap, vif-vhostuser. Even 
for sriov, a stub agent for testing is enough, no need for real hardware.

All these MD should be very thin, only handle port binding.

>  
> 
> So, it would be better to keep some "general backend" MD in tree besides 
> SRIOV. There are also vif-type-tap, vif-type-vhostuser, 
> hierarchy-binding-external-VTEP ... We can implement a very thin in-tree base 
> MD that only handle "vif bind" which is backend agonitsc, then backend 
> provider is free to implement their own service logic, either by an backend 
> agent, or by a driver derived from the base MD for agentless scenery.
> 
> Keeping general backend MDs in tree sounds reasonable.
> Regards
> 
> > Many thanks,
> >      Neil
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenStack-dev mailing list
> > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to