> On 21 Mar 2019, at 17:50, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 08:45:17AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 15:04:37 +0200
>> Liran Alon <liran.alon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> OK. Now what happens if master is moved to another namespace? Do we need
>>>> to move the slaves too?
>>>
>>> No. Why would we move the slaves? The whole point is to make most customer ignore the net-failover slaves and remain them “hidden” in their dedicated netns.
>>> We won’t prevent customer from explicitly moving the net-failover slaves out of this netns, but we will not move them out of there automatically.
>>
>>
>> The 2-device netvsc already handles case where master changes namespace.
>
> Is it by moving slave with it?
See c0a41b887ce6 ("hv_netvsc: move VF to same namespace as netvsc device”).
It seems that when NetVSC master netdev changes netns, the VF is moved to the same netns by the NetVSC driver.
Kinda the opposite than what we are suggesting here to make sure that the net-failover master netdev is on a separate
netns than it’s slaves...
-Liran
>
> --
> MST
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
