[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190227165205.307ed83c@cakuba.netronome.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 16:52:05 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@...pl>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: si-wei liu <si-wei.liu@...cle.com>,
"Samudrala, Sridhar" <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>,
Siwei Liu <loseweigh@...il.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
virtio-dev <virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org>,
"Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>,
Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>, liran.alon@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] Re: net_failover slave udev renaming (was Re: [RFC
PATCH net-next v6 4/4] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling code to use
the bypass framework)
On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 19:41:32 -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > As this scheme adds much complexity to the kernel naming convention
> > (currently it's just ethX names) that no userspace can understand.
>
> Anything that pokes at slaves needs to be specially designed anyway.
> Naming seems like a minor issue.
Can the users who care about the naming put net_failover into
"user space will do the bond enslavement" mode, and do the bond
creation/management themselves from user space (in systemd/
Network Manager) based on the failover flag?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists