On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 15:50:50 -0700
longli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> @@ -2347,6 +2342,12 @@ static int netvsc_register_vf(struct net_device *vf_netdev)
> if (!ndev)
> return NOTIFY_DONE;
>
> + if (event == NETDEV_POST_INIT) {
> + /* set slave flag before open to prevent IPv6 addrconf */
> + vf_netdev->flags |= IFF_SLAVE;
> + return NOTIFY_DONE;
> + }
> +
> net_device_ctx = netdev_priv(ndev);
> netvsc_dev = rtnl_dereference(net_device_ctx->nvdev);
> if (!netvsc_dev || rtnl_dereference(net_device_ctx->vf_netdev))
> @@ -2753,8 +2754,9 @@ static int netvsc_netdev_event(struct notifier_block *this,
> return NOTIFY_DONE;
>
> switch (event) {
> + case NETDEV_POST_INIT:
> case NETDEV_REGISTER:
> - return netvsc_register_vf(event_dev);
> + return netvsc_register_vf(event_dev, event);
Although correct, this is an awkward way to write this.
There are two events which call register_vf() but the post init
one short circuits and doesn't really register the VF.
The code is clearer if flag is set in switch statement.
@@ -2206,9 +2206,6 @@ static int netvsc_vf_join(struct net_device *vf_netdev,
goto upper_link_failed;
}
- /* set slave flag before open to prevent IPv6 addrconf */
- vf_netdev->flags |= IFF_SLAVE;
-
schedule_delayed_work(&ndev_ctx->vf_takeover, VF_TAKEOVER_INT);
call_netdevice_notifiers(NETDEV_JOIN, vf_netdev);
@@ -2753,6 +2750,10 @@ static int netvsc_netdev_event(struct notifier_block *this,
return NOTIFY_DONE;
switch (event) {
+ case NETDEV_POST_INIT:
+ /* set slave flag before open to prevent IPv6 addrconf */
+ vf_netdev->flags |= IFF_SLAVE;
+ return NOTIFY_DONE;
case NETDEV_REGISTER:
return netvsc_register_vf(event_dev);
case NETDEV_UNREGISTER:
