On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:36:47 -0800 John Fastabend <john.r.fastab...@intel.com> wrote:
> But the device features makes it easy for user space to learn that the device > supports this sort of offload. Now if all SR-IOV devices support this then it > doesn't matter but I thought there were SR-IOV devices that didn't do any > switching? I'll dig through the SR-IOV drivers to check there are not too > many of them. If user space needs to know then the OS is not designed properly. The purpose of the network device is to abstract all those details, and more and more of them are bleeding through. This makes writing management applications harder and makes things dependent on features that may or may not be present. The best design is when the change is invisible. > By netlink_notifier do you mean adding a notifier_block and using > atomic_notifier_call_chain() > probably in rtnl_notify()? Then drivers could register with the notifier > chain with > atomic_notifier_chain_register() and receive the events correctly. Or did I > miss > some notifier chain that already exists? Yes. that is what I mean. The callbacks you need may or may not already be present. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
