hi Jesse, We are getting the Hyper-V solution to a state with the following goals: - Work “out of the box” ie. no need to make special settings such as disabling checksum offload, TSO, etc. - Reasonably stable
Most of the patches we have checked in so far into 2.4 are geared towards these two goals. Once all of the required changes go in, and we are reasonably confident about the stability, we can hopefully make an announcement about Hyper-V support. The 64-bit support is geared towards support Windows Nano which IIRC, supports only 64-bit apps (Alin, correct me if I’m wrong). STT and VXLAN checksumming patches are required to make sure that we don’t have to disable them at the VIF to make TCP/Ping traffic work. The TCP flags patch is probably optional for 2.4, but maybe Alin has a good reason for it. I agree that we should not destabilize 2.4 branch and we’ll take precautions for it. Pls. let us know if you have concerns. thanks, -- Nithin > On Sep 22, 2015, at 7:11 PM, Jesse Gross <je...@nicira.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Nithin Raju <nit...@vmware.com> wrote: >> >>> On Sep 22, 2015, at 9:07 AM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: >>> >>> Thanks Sairam and Nithin, I applied this to master. >> >> Ben, >> Can you pls. apply this to 2.4 as well? > > I'm somewhat concerned about the number and size of Windows patches > that are targeted at 2.4 (it seems a lot went out today in > particular). Besides being large, many of them don't seem to meet the > criteria that I would normally expect for a backport. For example, > some look like features (64 bit support, TCP flags) while others > appear to be fixes for bugs so fundamental to the operation of things > that it seems unlikely that that part of the code can be deployed as > it currently exists (checksums in STT, VXLAN). > > Can you please explain the rationale? _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
