From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F027374C for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 11:06:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 408CF8E751; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 10:06:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pxdev.xzpeter.org (vpn1-6-95.pek2.redhat.com [10.72.6.95]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id tBFA5onW026663 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 15 Dec 2015 05:05:56 -0500 Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 18:05:48 +0800 From: Peter Xu To: Pavel Fedin Message-ID: <20151215100548.GD32243@pxdev.xzpeter.org> References: <000001d133ed$b2446eb0$16cd4c10$@samsung.com> <20151211094934.GX29571@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <001c01d133fd$d3a7d870$7af78950$@samsung.com> <20151214035842.GB18437@pxdev.xzpeter.org> <20151215082324.GG29571@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <007f01d13715$042a0a80$0c7e1f80$@samsung.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <007f01d13715$042a0a80$0c7e1f80$@samsung.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.26 Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Victor Kaplansky Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4 for 2.3] vhost-user live migration support X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 10:06:04 -0000 On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 11:45:56AM +0300, Pavel Fedin wrote: > To tell the truth, i don't know. I am also learning qemu internals on the fly. Indeed, i see that it should announce itself. But > this brings up a question: why do we need special announce procedure in vhost-user then? I have the same question. Here is my guess... In customized networks, maybe people are not using ARP at all? When we use DPDK, we directly pass through the network logic inside kernel itself. So logically all the network protocols could be customized by the user of it. In the customized network, maybe there is some other protocol (rather than RARP) that would do the same thing as what ARP/RARP does. So, this SEND_RARP request could give the vhost-user backend a chance to format its own announce packet and broadcast (in the SEND_RARP request, the guest's mac address will be appended). CCing Victor to better know the truth... Peter