search for: bypass_info

...ct net_device *bypass_netdev); >+ rx_handler_result_t (*handle_frame)(struct sk_buff **pskb); >+}; >+ >+struct bypass_master { >+ struct list_head list; >+ struct net_device __rcu *bypass_netdev; >+ struct bypass_ops __rcu *ops; >+}; >+ >+/* bypass state */ >+struct bypass_info { >+ /* passthru netdev with same MAC */ >+ struct net_device __rcu *active_netdev; You still use "active"/"backup" names which is highly misleading as it has completely different meaning that in bond for example. I noted that in my previous review already. Please change...

...ct net_device *bypass_netdev); >+ rx_handler_result_t (*handle_frame)(struct sk_buff **pskb); >+}; >+ >+struct bypass_master { >+ struct list_head list; >+ struct net_device __rcu *bypass_netdev; >+ struct bypass_ops __rcu *ops; >+}; >+ >+/* bypass state */ >+struct bypass_info { >+ /* passthru netdev with same MAC */ >+ struct net_device __rcu *active_netdev; You still use "active"/"backup" names which is highly misleading as it has completely different meaning that in bond for example. I noted that in my previous review already. Please change...

...(struct net_device *slave_netdev, + struct net_device *bypass_netdev); + rx_handler_result_t (*handle_frame)(struct sk_buff **pskb); +}; + +struct bypass_master { + struct list_head list; + struct net_device __rcu *bypass_netdev; + struct bypass_ops __rcu *ops; +}; + +/* bypass state */ +struct bypass_info { + /* passthru netdev with same MAC */ + struct net_device __rcu *active_netdev; + + /* virtio_net netdev */ + struct net_device __rcu *backup_netdev; + + /* active netdev stats */ + struct rtnl_link_stats64 active_stats; + + /* backup netdev stats */ + struct rtnl_link_stats64 backup_stats; + + /...

...sult_t (*handle_frame)(struct sk_buff **pskb); >> +}; >> + >> +struct bypass_master { >> + struct list_head list; >> + struct net_device __rcu *bypass_netdev; >> + struct bypass_ops __rcu *ops; >> +}; >> + >> +/* bypass state */ >> +struct bypass_info { >> + /* passthru netdev with same MAC */ >> + struct net_device __rcu *active_netdev; > You still use "active"/"backup" names which is highly misleading as > it has completely different meaning that in bond for example. > I noted that in my previous review...

The main motivation for this patch is to enable cloud service providers to provide an accelerated datapath to virtio-net enabled VMs in a transparent manner with no/minimal guest userspace changes. This also enables hypervisor controlled live migration to be supported with VMs that have direct attached SR-IOV VF devices. Patch 1 introduces a new feature bit VIRTIO_NET_F_BACKUP that can be used

...;> > +}; >> > + >> > +struct bypass_master { >> > + struct list_head list; >> > + struct net_device __rcu *bypass_netdev; >> > + struct bypass_ops __rcu *ops; >> > +}; >> > + >> > +/* bypass state */ >> > +struct bypass_info { >> > + /* passthru netdev with same MAC */ >> > + struct net_device __rcu *active_netdev; >> You still use "active"/"backup" names which is highly misleading as >> it has completely different meaning that in bond for example. >> I noted that...

...;> > +}; >> > + >> > +struct bypass_master { >> > + struct list_head list; >> > + struct net_device __rcu *bypass_netdev; >> > + struct bypass_ops __rcu *ops; >> > +}; >> > + >> > +/* bypass state */ >> > +struct bypass_info { >> > + /* passthru netdev with same MAC */ >> > + struct net_device __rcu *active_netdev; >> You still use "active"/"backup" names which is highly misleading as >> it has completely different meaning that in bond for example. >> I noted that...

...gt;> > > > + struct list_head list; >> > > > + struct net_device __rcu *bypass_netdev; >> > > > + struct bypass_ops __rcu *ops; >> > > > +}; >> > > > + >> > > > +/* bypass state */ >> > > > +struct bypass_info { >> > > > + /* passthru netdev with same MAC */ >> > > > + struct net_device __rcu *active_netdev; >> > > You still use "active"/"backup" names which is highly misleading as >> > > it has completely different meaning that in...

...gt;> > > > + struct list_head list; >> > > > + struct net_device __rcu *bypass_netdev; >> > > > + struct bypass_ops __rcu *ops; >> > > > +}; >> > > > + >> > > > +/* bypass state */ >> > > > +struct bypass_info { >> > > > + /* passthru netdev with same MAC */ >> > > > + struct net_device __rcu *active_netdev; >> > > You still use "active"/"backup" names which is highly misleading as >> > > it has completely different meaning that in...

...> + >>>> +struct bypass_master { >>>> + struct list_head list; >>>> + struct net_device __rcu *bypass_netdev; >>>> + struct bypass_ops __rcu *ops; >>>> +}; >>>> + >>>> +/* bypass state */ >>>> +struct bypass_info { >>>> + /* passthru netdev with same MAC */ >>>> + struct net_device __rcu *active_netdev; >>> You still use "active"/"backup" names which is highly misleading as >>> it has completely different meaning that in bond for example. >&gt...

...t list_head list; > >> > > > + struct net_device __rcu *bypass_netdev; > >> > > > + struct bypass_ops __rcu *ops; > >> > > > +}; > >> > > > + > >> > > > +/* bypass state */ > >> > > > +struct bypass_info { > >> > > > + /* passthru netdev with same MAC */ > >> > > > + struct net_device __rcu *active_netdev; > >> > > You still use "active"/"backup" names which is highly misleading as > >> > > it has completely diffe...

...t; >> > > > + struct net_device __rcu *bypass_netdev; >> >> > > > + struct bypass_ops __rcu *ops; >> >> > > > +}; >> >> > > > + >> >> > > > +/* bypass state */ >> >> > > > +struct bypass_info { >> >> > > > + /* passthru netdev with same MAC */ >> >> > > > + struct net_device __rcu *active_netdev; >> >> > > You still use "active"/"backup" names which is highly misleading as >> >> > > it has...

...t; >> > > > + struct net_device __rcu *bypass_netdev; >> >> > > > + struct bypass_ops __rcu *ops; >> >> > > > +}; >> >> > > > + >> >> > > > +/* bypass state */ >> >> > > > +struct bypass_info { >> >> > > > + /* passthru netdev with same MAC */ >> >> > > > + struct net_device __rcu *active_netdev; >> >> > > You still use "active"/"backup" names which is highly misleading as >> >> > > it has...