On 4/2/2019 8:14 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
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.
Stephen,
May be you should consider moving netvsc to use the net_failover driver now?
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
