Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 07:43:14PM CEST, dsahern@xxxxxxxxx wrote: >On 4/20/20 11:41 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >>> >>> I disagree. There are multiple master devices and no reason to have a >>> LAG specific get_slave. >> >> Do you have usecase for any other non-lag master type device? >> Note the ndo name can change whenever needed. I think the name should >> reflect the usage. >> > >right now, no. But nothing about the current need is LAG specific, so >don't make it seem like it is LAG specific with the name. I don't care really, I just thought we can make the connection by the name. Makes sense to me.
