On 5/7/2018 4:59 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Mon, 7 May 2018 15:10:44 -0700 Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:+ if (netif_running(failover_dev)) { + err = dev_open(slave_dev); + if (err && (err != -EBUSY)) { + netdev_err(failover_dev, "Opening slave %s failed err:%d\n", + slave_dev->name, err); + goto err_dev_open; + } + } + + netif_addr_lock_bh(failover_dev); + dev_uc_sync_multiple(slave_dev, failover_dev); + dev_uc_sync_multiple(slave_dev, failover_dev); + netif_addr_unlock_bh(failover_dev); +The order of these is backwards, you want to sync addresses before bringing up. Also, doing it this way does not allow udev/systemd the chance to rename VF devices.
During my testing, i noticed that dev_open() may fail with EBUSY in certain scenarios, If so, the opening of the slave is handled after the rename via the NETDEV_CHANGENAME event handler.
The complexity of this whole failover mechanism does not make life easier, more reliable, or safer for netvsc. I though that was the whole reason for having common code.
netvsc doesn't go through this code. if (nfo_ops && nfo_ops->slave_register) return nfo_ops->slave_register(slave_dev, failover_dev); So there is no change in event handling for netvsc 2-netdev model. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
