On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 11:56 AM Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@xxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 14:36:56 -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > It is a bit of a the chicken or the egg situation ;) But users can > > > just blacklist, too. Anyway, I think this is far better than module > > > parameters > > > > Sorry I'm a bit confused. What is better than what? > > I mean that blacklist net_failover or module param to disable > net_failover and handle in user space are better than trying to solve > the renaming at kernel level (either by adding module params that make > the kernel rename devices or letting user space change names of running > devices if they are slaves). Before I was aksed to revive this old mail thread, I knew the discussion could end up with something like this. Yes, theoretically there's a point - basically you don't believe kernel should take risk in fixing the issue, so you push back the hope to something in hypothesis that actually wasn't done and hard to get done in reality. It's not too different than saying "hey, what you're asking for is simply wrong, don't do it! Go back to modify userspace to create a bond or team instead!" FWIW I want to emphasize that the debate for what should be the right place to implement this failover facility: userspace versus kernel, had been around for almost a decade, and no real work ever happened in userspace to "standardize" this in the Linux world. The truth is that it's quite amount of complex work to get it implemented right at userspace in reality: what Michael mentions about making dracut auto-bonding aware is just tip of the iceberg. Basically one would need to modify all the existing network config tools to treat them well with this new auto-bonding concept: handle duplicate MACs, differentiate it with regular bond/team, fix boot time dependency of network boot and etc. Moreover, it's not a single distro's effort from cloud provider's perspective, at least not as simple as to say just move it to a daemon systemd/NM then work is done. We (Oracle) had done extensive work in the past year to help align various userspace components and work with distro vendors to patch shipped packages to make them work with the failover 3-netdev model. The work that needs to be done with userspace auto-bonding would be more involved than just that, with quite trivial value (just naming?) in turn that I suspect any developer in userspace could be motivated. So, simply put, no, we have zero interest in this direction. If upstream believes this is the final conclusion, I think we can stop discussing. Thanks, -Siwei > > > > for twiddling kernel-based interface naming policy.. :S > > > > I see your point. But my point is slave names don't really matter, only > > master name matters. So I am not sure there's any policy worth talking > > about here. > > Oh yes, I don't disagree with you, but others seems to want to rename > the auto-bonded lower devices. Which can be done trivially if it was > a daemon in user space instantiating the auto-bond. We are just > providing a basic version of auto-bonding in the kernel. If there are > extra requirements on policy, or naming - the whole thing is better > solved in user space. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
