On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 04:40:19PM +0200, Gerhard Stenzel wrote:
On Sun, 2011-06-12 at 20:29 -0400, Laine Stump wrote:
<!-- A macvtap passthrough connection (one guest interface per dev) --> <network> <name>red-network</name> <forward layer='link' mode='passthrough' dev='eth10'/> <interface dev='eth10'/> <interface dev='eth11'/> <interface dev='eth12'/> <interface dev='eth13'/> <interface dev='eth14'/> <interface dev='eth15'/> <interface dev='eth16'/> <interface dev='eth17'/> </forward> </network>
If this example describes a scenario with a SR-IOV card, where eth10 is the physical function and eth11-eth17 are the virtual functions and libvirt can attach a VM to any of the VFs, then I would not list eth10 in the interface pool for passthrough devices.
All interfaces listed here should be considered equal for attaching VMs to. I don't think the network code has to even care about whether a NIC in the XML is a virtual or a physical function. The application will discover NICs and whether they are virtual/physical functions via the node device APIs in libvirt. It will then decide which of the NICs to use when creating the network XML. Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|