[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180507165911.45b14c58@xeon-e3>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2018 16:59:11 -0700
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To: Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>
Cc: mst@...hat.com, davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org, jesse.brandeburg@...el.com,
alexander.h.duyck@...el.com, kubakici@...pl, jasowang@...hat.com,
loseweigh@...il.com, jiri@...nulli.us, aaron.f.brown@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v10 2/4] net: Introduce generic failover module
On Mon, 7 May 2018 15:10:44 -0700
Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com> wrote:
> + if (netif_running(failover_dev)) {
> + err = dev_open(slave_dev);
> + if (err && (err != -EBUSY)) {
> + netdev_err(failover_dev, "Opening slave %s failed err:%d\n",
> + slave_dev->name, err);
> + goto err_dev_open;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + netif_addr_lock_bh(failover_dev);
> + dev_uc_sync_multiple(slave_dev, failover_dev);
> + dev_uc_sync_multiple(slave_dev, failover_dev);
> + netif_addr_unlock_bh(failover_dev);
> +
The order of these is backwards, you want to sync addresses before bringing up.
Also, doing it this way does not allow udev/systemd the chance to rename VF devices.
The complexity of this whole failover mechanism does not make life easier,
more reliable, or safer for netvsc. I though that was the whole reason for having
common code.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists