Linux Virtualization - May 2018 - [PATCH net-next v11 2/5] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling code to use the failover framework

Tue, May 22, 2018 at 04:06:18AM CEST, sridhar.samudrala at intel.com
wrote:
>Use the registration/notification framework supported by the generic
>failover infrastructure.
>
>Signed-off-by: Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala at intel.com>
In previous patchset versions, the common code did
netdev_rx_handler_register() and netdev_upper_dev_link() etc
(netvsc_vf_join()). Now, this is still done in netvsc. Why?

This should be part of the common "failover" code.

Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:06:37AM CEST, jiri at resnulli.us
wrote:
>Tue, May 22, 2018 at 04:06:18AM CEST, sridhar.samudrala at intel.com wrote:
>>Use the registration/notification framework supported by the generic
>>failover infrastructure.
>>
>>Signed-off-by: Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala at intel.com>
>
>In previous patchset versions, the common code did
>netdev_rx_handler_register() and netdev_upper_dev_link() etc
>(netvsc_vf_join()). Now, this is still done in netvsc. Why?
>
>This should be part of the common "failover" code.
>
Also note that in the current patchset you use IFF_FAILOVER flag for
master, yet for the slave you use IFF_SLAVE. That is wrong.
IFF_FAILOVER_SLAVE should be used.

On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:08:53AM +0200, Jiri Pirko
wrote:
> Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:06:37AM CEST, jiri at resnulli.us wrote:
> >Tue, May 22, 2018 at 04:06:18AM CEST, sridhar.samudrala at intel.com
wrote:
> >>Use the registration/notification framework supported by the
generic
> >>failover infrastructure.
> >>
> >>Signed-off-by: Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala at
intel.com>
> >
> >In previous patchset versions, the common code did
> >netdev_rx_handler_register() and netdev_upper_dev_link() etc
> >(netvsc_vf_join()). Now, this is still done in netvsc. Why?
> >
> >This should be part of the common "failover" code.
> >
> 
> Also note that in the current patchset you use IFF_FAILOVER flag for
> master, yet for the slave you use IFF_SLAVE. That is wrong.
> IFF_FAILOVER_SLAVE should be used.
Or drop IFF_FAILOVER_SLAVE and set both IFF_FAILOVER and IFF_SLAVE?

-- 
MST

On 5/22/2018 2:08 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:06:37AM CEST, jiri at resnulli.us wrote:
>> Tue, May 22, 2018 at 04:06:18AM CEST, sridhar.samudrala at intel.com
wrote:
>>> Use the registration/notification framework supported by the
generic
>>> failover infrastructure.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala at
intel.com>
>> In previous patchset versions, the common code did
>> netdev_rx_handler_register() and netdev_upper_dev_link() etc
>> (netvsc_vf_join()). Now, this is still done in netvsc. Why?
>>
>> This should be part of the common "failover" code.
Based on Stephen's feedback on earlier patches, i tried to minimize the
changes to
netvsc and only commonize the notifier and the main event handler routine.
Another complication is that netvsc does part of registration in a delayed
workqueue.

It should be possible to move some of the code from net_failover.c to generic
failover.c in future if Stephen is ok with it.

>>
> Also note that in the current patchset you use IFF_FAILOVER flag for
> master, yet for the slave you use IFF_SLAVE. That is wrong.
> IFF_FAILOVER_SLAVE should be used.
Not sure which code you are referring to.? I only set IFF_FAILOVER_SLAVE
in patch 3.