On Tue, 2 Apr 2019 22:22:18 -0700 "Samudrala, Sridhar" <sridhar.samudrala@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? > NO Why would I waste time doing that when there is a working and cleaner solution that is working across 4 OS's and three versions of five major distributions? _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
