[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110519113127.GE21309@gospo.rdu.redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 07:31:27 -0400
From: Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>
To: Amerigo Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
Neil Horman <nhorman@...hat.com>,
Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@...rix.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [V2 Patch net-next-2.6] netpoll: disable netpoll when enslave
a device
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 04:39:53PM +0800, Amerigo Wang wrote:
[...]
> diff --git a/include/linux/notifier.h b/include/linux/notifier.h
> index 621dfa1..3d82867 100644
> --- a/include/linux/notifier.h
> +++ b/include/linux/notifier.h
> @@ -211,6 +211,7 @@ static inline int notifier_to_errno(int ret)
> #define NETDEV_UNREGISTER_BATCH 0x0011
> #define NETDEV_BONDING_DESLAVE 0x0012
> #define NETDEV_NOTIFY_PEERS 0x0013
> +#define NETDEV_ENSLAVE 0x0014
>
> #define SYS_DOWN 0x0001 /* Notify of system down */
> #define SYS_RESTART SYS_DOWN
Neil just noted the same concern I had -- the asymmetry between
NETDEV_ENSLAVE and NETDEV_BONDING_DESLAVE bothers me a bit. I also
don't really like the followup patch that uses 'ENSLAVE' in the bridging
code when we typically use that language for bonding only.
What about changing NETDEV_BONDING_DESLAVE to NETDEV_RELEASE and create
NETDEV_JOIN instead of NETDEV_ENSLAVE? I would prefer that or something
else that might use more generic language that could be applied to all
for stacked interfaces.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists