I encountered two conflicts when I rebased this patch to upstream. Noted
in the comments.
On 03/04/2012 10:15 PM, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
From: Roopa Prabhu ropra...@cisco.com
This patch includes the following changes
- removes some netlink functions which are now available in virnetdev.c
- Adds
On 3/5/12 11:16 AM, Laine Stump la...@laine.org wrote:
I encountered two conflicts when I rebased this patch to upstream. Noted
in the comments.
On 03/04/2012 10:15 PM, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
From: Roopa Prabhu ropra...@cisco.com
This patch includes the following changes
- removes some
From: Roopa Prabhu ropra...@cisco.com
This patch includes the following changes
- removes some netlink functions which are now available in virnetdev.c
- Adds a vf argument to all port profile functions
For 802.1Qbh devices, the port profile calls can use a vf argument if
passed by the caller.
On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 13:02 -0500, Laine Stump wrote:
In the case of hostdev though, there is not necessarily any netdev
driver at all in the host (and thus no linkdev to attach a macvtap
to), certainly not after it's attached to the guest - control of the
PCI
device is given over to the
On 03/02/2012 09:12 AM, Gerhard Stenzel wrote:
On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 13:02 -0500, Laine Stump wrote:
In the case of hostdev though, there is not necessarily any netdev
driver at all in the host (and thus no linkdev to attach a macvtap
to), certainly not after it's attached to the guest -
On 03/02/2012 10:52 AM, Laine Stump wrote:
On 03/02/2012 09:12 AM, Gerhard Stenzel wrote:
On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 13:02 -0500, Laine Stump wrote:
In the case of hostdev though, there is not necessarily any netdev
driver at all in the host (and thus no linkdev to attach a macvtap
to), certainly
On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 10:52 -0500, Laine Stump wrote:
Again, my knowledge is insufficient to understand - why was a vlanid
not
necessary before when we were dealing with a hostside macvtap tied to
a
guest-side emulated netdev, and why is it necessary now that we want
to
just passthrough the
On 03/02/2012 11:37 AM, Gerhard Stenzel wrote:
Letting the guest do the association is an option, which should work
already (even if noone probably tested it yet), but the question is
really how much control should the host have vs the guest. There are
definitely scenarios thinkable where the
On 03/02/2012 11:58 AM, Stefan Berger wrote:
On 03/02/2012 11:37 AM, Gerhard Stenzel wrote:
Letting the guest do the association is an option, which should work
already (even if noone probably tested it yet), but the question is
really how much control should the host have vs the guest. There
On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 10:52 -0500, Laine Stump wrote:
1) Currently it requires a PCI address (although I plan to add the
ability to accept a netdev name and automatically convert it to a PCI
address):
source
address type='pci' domain='0' bus='0' slot='6' function='0'/
/source
On 3/2/12 11:27 AM, Laine Stump la...@laine.org wrote:
On 03/02/2012 11:58 AM, Stefan Berger wrote:
On 03/02/2012 11:37 AM, Gerhard Stenzel wrote:
Letting the guest do the association is an option, which should work
already (even if noone probably tested it yet), but the question is
On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 14:27 -0500, Laine Stump wrote:
So, at the end of this, is there *any* 802.1QbX mode that can work
using
PCI passthrough without at least one of the following things:
1) a macvtap interface on the host. (what about my idea of attaching a
macvtap interface to the PF?
On 3/2/12 9:21 AM, Gerhard Stenzel gsten...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 14:27 -0500, Laine Stump wrote:
So, at the end of this, is there *any* 802.1QbX mode that can work
using
PCI passthrough without at least one of the following things:
1) a macvtap interface on
On 03/02/2012 12:05 PM, Gerhard Stenzel wrote:
On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 10:52 -0500, Laine Stump wrote:
1) Currently it requires a PCI address (although I plan to add the
ability to accept a netdev name and automatically convert it to a PCI
address):
source
address type='pci' domain='0'
On 03/02/2012 03:16 PM, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
On 3/2/12 11:27 AM, Laine Stump la...@laine.org wrote:
On 03/02/2012 11:58 AM, Stefan Berger wrote:
On 03/02/2012 11:37 AM, Gerhard Stenzel wrote:
Letting the guest do the association is an option, which should work
already (even if noone probably
On 3/2/12 12:45 PM, Laine Stump la...@laine.org wrote:
On 03/02/2012 03:16 PM, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
On 3/2/12 11:27 AM, Laine Stump la...@laine.org wrote:
On 03/02/2012 11:58 AM, Stefan Berger wrote:
On 03/02/2012 11:37 AM, Gerhard Stenzel wrote:
Letting the guest do the association is an
On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 15:45 -0500, Laine Stump wrote:
Okay, then in the end these patches will support 802.1Qbh
virtualport
setting, as well as setting the MAC address (but only for
SRIOV-capable
devices). And any future support for 802.1Qbg would require both some
extra support outside
From: Roopa Prabhu ropra...@cisco.com
This patch includes the following changes
- removes some netlink functions which are now available in virnetdev.c
- Adds a vf argument to all port profile functions
For 802.1Qbh devices, the port profile calls can use a vf argument if
passed by the caller.
On 03/01/2012 04:02 AM, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
From: Roopa Prabhuropra...@cisco.com
This patch includes the following changes
- removes some netlink functions which are now available in virnetdev.c
- Adds a vf argument to all port profile functions
For 802.1Qbh devices, the port profile calls can
On 3/1/12 4:39 AM, Stefan Berger stef...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On 03/01/2012 04:02 AM, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
From: Roopa Prabhuropra...@cisco.com
This patch includes the following changes
- removes some netlink functions which are now available in virnetdev.c
- Adds a vf argument to
On 3/1/12 7:52 AM, Stefan Berger stef...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On 03/01/2012 10:32 AM, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
On 3/1/12 4:39 AM, Stefan Bergerstef...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On 03/01/2012 04:02 AM, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
From: Roopa Prabhuropra...@cisco.com
This patch includes
On 03/01/2012 10:32 AM, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
On 3/1/12 4:39 AM, Stefan Bergerstef...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On 03/01/2012 04:02 AM, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
From: Roopa Prabhuropra...@cisco.com
This patch includes the following changes
- removes some netlink functions which are now available
On 03/01/2012 11:32 AM, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
On 3/1/12 7:52 AM, Stefan Bergerstef...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On 03/01/2012 10:32 AM, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
On 3/1/12 4:39 AM, Stefan Bergerstef...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On 03/01/2012 04:02 AM, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
From: Roopa
On 03/01/2012 11:55 AM, Stefan Berger wrote:
On 03/01/2012 11:32 AM, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
On 3/1/12 7:52 AM, Stefan Bergerstef...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On 03/01/2012 10:32 AM, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
On 3/1/12 4:39 AM, Stefan Bergerstef...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
wrote:
On 03/01/2012 04:02
24 matches
Mail list logo
