Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 05:13:40PM CEST, sridhar.samudrala@xxxxxxxxx wrote: >On 4/10/2018 3:55 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 08:47:06PM CEST, sridhar.samudrala@xxxxxxxxx wrote: >> > On 4/9/2018 1:07 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> > > Sat, Apr 07, 2018 at 12:59:14AM CEST, sridhar.samudrala@xxxxxxxxx wrote: >> > > > On 4/6/2018 5:48 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> > > > > Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 11:08:22PM CEST, sridhar.samudrala@xxxxxxxxx wrote: >> > > [...] >> > > >> > > > > > +static int virtnet_bypass_join_child(struct net_device *bypass_netdev, >> > > > > > + struct net_device *child_netdev) >> > > > > > +{ >> > > > > > + struct virtnet_bypass_info *vbi; >> > > > > > + bool backup; >> > > > > > + >> > > > > > + vbi = netdev_priv(bypass_netdev); >> > > > > > + backup = (child_netdev->dev.parent == bypass_netdev->dev.parent); >> > > > > > + if (backup ? rtnl_dereference(vbi->backup_netdev) : >> > > > > > + rtnl_dereference(vbi->active_netdev)) { >> > > > > > + netdev_info(bypass_netdev, >> > > > > > + "%s attempting to join bypass dev when %s already present\n", >> > > > > > + child_netdev->name, backup ? "backup" : "active"); >> > > > > Bypass module should check if there is already some other netdev >> > > > > enslaved and refuse right there. >> > > > This will work for virtio-net with 3 netdev model, but this check has to be done by netvsc >> > > > as its bypass_netdev is same as the backup_netdev. >> > > > Will add a flag while registering with the bypass module to indicate if the driver is doing >> > > > a 2 netdev or 3 netdev model and based on that flag this check can be done in bypass module >> > > > for 3 netdev scenario. >> > > Just let me undestand it clearly. What I expect the difference would be >> > > between 2netdev and3 netdev model is this: >> > > 2netdev: >> > > bypass_master >> > > / >> > > / >> > > VF_slave >> > > >> > > 3netdev: >> > > bypass_master >> > > / \ >> > > / \ >> > > VF_slave backup_slave >> > > >> > > Is that correct? If not, how does it look like? >> > > >> > > >> > Looks correct. >> > VF_slave and backup_slave are the original netdevs and are present in both the models. >> > In the 3 netdev model, bypass_master netdev is created and VF_slave and backup_slave are >> > marked as the 2 slaves of this new netdev. >> You say it looks correct and in another sentence you provide completely >> different description. Could you please look again? >> >To be exact, 2 netdev model with netvsc looks like this. > > netvsc_netdev > / > / > VF_slave > >With virtio_net, 3 netdev model > > bypass_netdev > / \ > / \ >VF_slave virtio_net netdev Could you also mark the original netdev which is there now? is it bypass_netdev or virtio_net_netdev ? _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization