[ovs-dev] [PATCH 07/15] doc: Convert WHY-OVS to rST

[Russell Bryant]

On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 8:00 AM, Stephen Fincane <stephen at that.guru> wrote:

> On Fri, 2016-10-21 at 16:09 -0400, Russell Bryant wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Stephen Finucane <stephen at that.guru>
> > wrote:
> > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Finucane <stephen at that.guru>
>
> [snip]
>
> > > +The advantage of hardware integration is not only performance
> > > within
> > > +virtualized environments. If physical switches also expose the
> > > Open vSwitch
> > > +control abstractions, both bare-metal and virtualized hosting
> > > environments can
> > > +be managed using the same mechanism for automated network control.
> > > +
> > > +In many ways, Open vSwitch targets a different point in the design
> > > space than
> > > +previous hypervisor networking stacks, focusing on the need for
> > > automated and
> > > +dynamic network control in large-scale Linux-based virtualization
> > > environments.
> > > +
> > > +The goal with Open vSwitch is to keep the in-kernel code as small
> > > as possible
> > > +(as is necessary for performance) and to re-use existing
> > > subsystems when
> > > +applicable (for example Open vSwitch uses the existing QoS stack).
> > > As of Linux
> > > +3.3, Open vSwitch is included as a part of the kernel and
> > > packaging for the
> > > +userspace utilities are available on most popular distributions.
> >
> > These last two paragraphs were not part of the "hardware integration"
> > section in the original doc.  They were the closing paragraphs of the
> > document.  I haven't thought of a good heading for them, though.
> > Maybe "design"?  Thoughts?
>
> Good catch. Totally up to you, though. I'd suggest "conclusion" or
> "summary", but I'm also fine with "design".
>

Good idea, I like "conclusion" or "summary".  I'll use one of those.

-- 
Russell Bryant