Tue, May 22, 2018 at 03:12:40PM CEST, mst@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: >On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:08:53AM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:06:37AM CEST, jiri@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> >Tue, May 22, 2018 at 04:06:18AM CEST, sridhar.samudrala@xxxxxxxxx wrote: >> >>Use the registration/notification framework supported by the generic >> >>failover infrastructure. >> >> >> >>Signed-off-by: Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala@xxxxxxxxx> >> > >> >In previous patchset versions, the common code did >> >netdev_rx_handler_register() and netdev_upper_dev_link() etc >> >(netvsc_vf_join()). Now, this is still done in netvsc. Why? >> > >> >This should be part of the common "failover" code. >> > >> >> Also note that in the current patchset you use IFF_FAILOVER flag for >> master, yet for the slave you use IFF_SLAVE. That is wrong. >> IFF_FAILOVER_SLAVE should be used. > >Or drop IFF_FAILOVER_SLAVE and set both IFF_FAILOVER and IFF_SLAVE? No. IFF_SLAVE is for bonding. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
