[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d62006dc-d602-7389-cc27-2c1873163ad2@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2019 15:23:29 -0700
From: si-wei liu <si-wei.liu@...cle.com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Cc: mst@...hat.com, sridhar.samudrala@...el.com, davem@...emloft.net,
kubakici@...pl, alexander.duyck@...il.com, jiri@...nulli.us,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
liran.alon@...cle.com, boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com,
vijay.balakrishna@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v5] failover: allow name change on IFF_UP slave
interfaces
On 4/2/2019 2:53 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 19:04:53 -0400
> Si-Wei Liu <si-wei.liu@...cle.com> wrote:
>
>> + if (dev->flags & IFF_UP &&
>> + likely(!(dev->priv_flags & IFF_FAILOVER_SLAVE)))
> Why is property limited to failover slave, it would make sense for netvsc
> as well. Why not make it a flag like live address change?
Well, netvsc today is still taking the delayed approach meaning that it
is incompatible yet with this live name change flag if need be. ;-)
I thought Sridhar did not like to introduce an additional
IFF_SLAVE_RENAME_OK flag given that failover slave is the only consumer
for the time being. Even though I can get it back, patch is needed for
netvsc to remove the VF takeover delay IMHO.
Sridhar, what do you think we revive the IFF_SLAVE_RENAME_OK flag which
allows netvsc to be used later on? Or maybe, IFF_LIVE_RENAME_OK for a
better name?
-Siwei
Powered by blists - more mailing lists