On Tue, 2 Apr 2019 15:23:29 -0700 si-wei liu <si-wei.liu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 4/2/2019 2:53 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 19:04:53 -0400 > > Si-Wei Liu <si-wei.liu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> + if (dev->flags & IFF_UP && > >> + likely(!(dev->priv_flags & IFF_FAILOVER_SLAVE))) > > Why is property limited to failover slave, it would make sense for netvsc > > as well. Why not make it a flag like live address change? > Well, netvsc today is still taking the delayed approach meaning that it > is incompatible yet with this live name change flag if need be. ;-) > > I thought Sridhar did not like to introduce an additional > IFF_SLAVE_RENAME_OK flag given that failover slave is the only consumer > for the time being. Even though I can get it back, patch is needed for > netvsc to remove the VF takeover delay IMHO. > > Sridhar, what do you think we revive the IFF_SLAVE_RENAME_OK flag which > allows netvsc to be used later on? Or maybe, IFF_LIVE_RENAME_OK for a > better name? > > -Siwei I would name it IFF_LIVE_NAME_CHANGE to match IFF_LIVE_ADDR_CHANGE there is no reason its use should be restricted to SLAVE devices. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
