Sent from my iPad
On 2014-12-16, at 下午2:54, "Armando M." <[email protected]> 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 > > [email protected] > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
