On 4/6/2019 12:21 AM, si-wei liu wrote:
Stephen are you happy with this approach?
I think it is the best solution for what you want to do.
Since you're asking specifically, I tried what you suggested below.
Did you test with some things like Free Range Routing,
Although there might be spurious warning (which is a check for sanity
more than an error) while slave interface is up, slave rename had been
handled quite well there, no matter which state slave is at.
https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/blob/master/zebra/if_netlink.c#L97
The FRR users are supposed to operate on failover master interface
anyway. No one is expected to configure those passive interfaces for
routing.
VPP
Nothing particular was seen for this one. The netlink usage there
doesn't seem related to my change:
https://github.com/FDio/vpp/blob/master/src/vnet/devices/netlink.c
or other userspace
control planes that consume netlink?
dhcpcd (https://github.com/kobolabs/dhcpcd/blob/kobo/if-linux.c#L761)
was tested OK.
In addition, the patch seems to play quite well with systemd-udev and
dracut/initramfs-tools. No breakage, no weird error message was seen.
What else do you suggest we should try/test with?
Thanks Siwei for all the tests you are trying out. Did you notice that
any of these tests required the NETDEV_CHANGE notifier that you added?
-Sridhar
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
