Tue, May 22, 2018 at 03:39:33PM CEST, mst@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: >On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 03:26:26PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> Tue, May 22, 2018 at 03:17:37PM CEST, mst@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> >On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 03:14:22PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> >> 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. >> > >> >What breaks if we reuse it for failover? >> >> This is exposed to userspace. IFF_SLAVE is expected for bonding slaves. >> And failover slave is not a bonding slave. > >That does not really answer the question. I'd claim it's sufficiently >like a bond slave for IFF_SLAVE to make sense. > >In fact you will find that netvsc already sets IFF_SLAVE, and so netvsc does the whole failover thing in a wrong way. This patchset is trying to fix it. >does e.g. the eql driver. > >The advantage of using IFF_SLAVE is that userspace knows to skip it. If The userspace should know how to skip other types of slaves - team, bridge, ovs, etc. The "master link" should be the one to look at. >we don't set IFF_SLAVE existing userspace tries to use the lowerdev. Each master type has a IFF_ master flag and IFF_ slave flag. In private flag. I don't see no reason to break this pattern here. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
