1. Feature Overview: Feature Id: [73640] a. Name of Feature: [6.3 FEAT] libvirt: dynamic allocation of VFs to facilitate VM migration b. Feature Description static assigment of VS to a VMs make VM migration impossible. dynamic assigment from a pool of VFs will facilitate migration 2. Feature Details: Sponsor: --- Architectures: Arch Specificity: --- Affects Kernel Modules: No Delivery Mechanism: Backport Category: other Request Type: Other d. Upstream Acceptance: --- Sponsor Priority P3 f. Severity: high IBM Confidential: No Code Contribution: unsure g. Component Version Target: --- 3. Business Case 4. Primary contact at Red Hat: John Jarvis, jjarvis 5. Primary contacts at Partner: Project Management Contact: Stephanie A. Glass, sglass.com Technical contact(s): Gerhard Stenzel, gerhard.stenzel.com
Is this specifically talking about VFs that are assigned to a guest via PCI Passthrough (<hostdev>)? Or is using macvtap in passthrough mode (with the guest using virtio) acceptable? For the former case (PCI passthrough), as a possible solution to Bug 691539, I sent a proposal upstream a couple weeks ago that, while incomplete/incorrect, should lead to something that will fulfill the requirements: https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2011-August/msg00937.html For the latter case (macvtap in passthrough mode), this is already committed upstream as of libvirt-0.9.4, and thus will be in RHEL6.2 (of course there could be bugs and/or missing details). See http://www.libvirt.org/formatnetwork.html, in particular the "passthrough" forward mode for more info.
jjarvis - you've reset the needinfo I set for the question at the beginning of Comment 2, but didn't answer the question.
Sorry, I was only setting priority, milestone, etc., not answering the question.
Setting back to NEEDINFO of IBM.
------- Comment From gerhard.stenzel.com 2011-12-13 14:41 EDT------- (In reply to comment #5) apologies for the delay > For the latter case (macvtap in passthrough mode), this is already committed > upstream as of libvirt-0.9.4, and thus will be in RHEL6.2 (of course there > could be bugs and/or missing details). See > http://www.libvirt.org/formatnetwork.html, in particular the "passthrough" > forward mode for more info. I did some initial verification with RHEL 6.2 and this request is covered there. I think, the feature request can be dropped and if - after additional verification - additional issues show up they could be handled as bugs. Thank you ------- Comment From sglass.com 2011-12-13 14:43 EDT------- Closing as NotABug at this time.