Sent from my iPad
On 2014-12-16, at 下午2:54, "Armando M." 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) sh
>
>
>
> 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 fo
On 15 December 2014 at 09:53, Neil Jerram
wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Following the approval for Neutron vendor code decomposition
> (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/134680/), I just wanted to comment
> that it appears to work fine to have an ML2 mechanism driver _entirely_
> out of tree, so long as t
[mailto:ire...@mellanox.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 12:00 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Cc: henry4...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Minimal ML2 mechanism driver after Neutron
decomposition change
-Original Message-
From: henry hly [mailto
-Original Message-
From: henry hly [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 3:12 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Minimal ML2 mechanism driver after Neutron
decomposition change
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 1:53 AM, Neil
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 1:53 AM, Neil Jerram wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Following the approval for Neutron vendor code decomposition
> (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/134680/), I just wanted to comment
> that it appears to work fine to have an ML2 mechanism driver _entirely_
> out of tree, so long as