RE: [Xen-devel] VF as default interface on dom0

["Rose, Gregory V" <gregory.v.rose@xxxxxxxxx>]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:xen-devel-
>bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Simon Horman
>Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:38 AM
>To: Satish Chowdhury
>Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] VF as default interface on dom0
>
>On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 01:19:51PM +0530, Satish Chowdhury wrote:
>> Hi Simon,
>>
>> Thanks for the reply and reproducing the problem.
>>
>> I didn't tried with pv_ops kernel yet.
>>
>> I guess the issue is not with the driver.  As I understand, the
>behavior is
>> because of the L2 filtering done by 82576 NIC.
>>
>> The NIC filters frames based on MAC address that are assigned to VFs.
>In my
>> experiment, the arp reply that reaches the NIC, has mac address of
>interface
>> on VM(domU). NIC's filtering based on VF MAC address fail. So, packet
>is not
>> queued to VF interface.  On dom0 a bridge is created, with VF and
>domUs
>> virtual interfaces (no PF).
>> If we group PF interface also into this bridge, because of bridge
>learning
>> functionality, the packet get routed to the virtual interface and
>finally to
>> VM.
>>
>> I am not 100% sure about above understanding of mine. Please, me know
>if you
>> think i am wrong.
>
>I suspect you are right, though I was hoping that its a problem
>that could be fixed by the driver configuring the card slightly
>differently.
>
>It would probably be good to post your problem report to the
>e1000-devel and/or netdev lists to get some more eye's on it.
>
>
[Rose, Gregory V] 

I must have missed some previous email on this subject but from the context 
here I'm guessing that you're trying to put the PF driver on a bridge so that 
you can support some emulated connections in some VMs and some VFs in other VMs?

Is that the case?

- Greg

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel