That will depend on the backend, port type, etc. But yes, I don't think we should support all combinations. Actually, as commented in the bug description, this is a kind of "direct" port. This is what I tried to explain in c#1 and c#3. We already have a "smartnic" VNIC type (for OVS using VF representors) and "direct".
In this case, "direct" + "device_profile" could be enough. And as you said, this is going to be a PCI device, that means in Neutron terms, a VNIC type "direct" port.
So maybe we can "reuse" direct for those ports instead of adding a new VNIC type. The "device_profile" descriptor could be enough, IMO.
Hi Balazs:
That will depend on the backend, port type, etc. But yes, I don't think we should support all combinations. Actually, as commented in the bug description, this is a kind of "direct" port. This is what I tried to explain in c#1 and c#3. We already have a "smartnic" VNIC type (for OVS using VF representors) and "direct".
In this case, "direct" + "device_profile" could be enough. And as you said, this is going to be a PCI device, that means in Neutron terms, a VNIC type "direct" port.
So maybe we can "reuse" direct for those ports instead of adding a new VNIC type. The "device_profile" descriptor could be enough, IMO.
Regards.