search for: flustrating

..., and if this flag also allows enhanced functionality >> userspace will gradually switch. > Okay, although in this case, it really does not make much sense, so be > it. Leave the netvsc set the ->priv flag to IFF_SLAVE as it is doing > now. (This once-wrong-forever-wrong policy is flustrating me). > > But since this patchset introduces private flag IFF_FAILOVER and > IFF_FAILOVER_SLAVE, and we set IFF_FAILOVER to the netvsc netdev > instance, we should also set IFF_FAILOVER_SLAVE to the enslaved VF > netdevice to get at least some consistency between virtio_net and > n...

..., and if this flag also allows enhanced functionality >> userspace will gradually switch. > Okay, although in this case, it really does not make much sense, so be > it. Leave the netvsc set the ->priv flag to IFF_SLAVE as it is doing > now. (This once-wrong-forever-wrong policy is flustrating me). > > But since this patchset introduces private flag IFF_FAILOVER and > IFF_FAILOVER_SLAVE, and we set IFF_FAILOVER to the netvsc netdev > instance, we should also set IFF_FAILOVER_SLAVE to the enslaved VF > netdevice to get at least some consistency between virtio_net and > n...

On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 05:36:14PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: > Tue, May 22, 2018 at 05:28:42PM CEST, sridhar.samudrala at intel.com wrote: > > > >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: > >> > >

On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 05:36:14PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: > Tue, May 22, 2018 at 05:28:42PM CEST, sridhar.samudrala at intel.com wrote: > > > >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: > >> > >

...;behave differently, and if this flag also allows enhanced functionality >userspace will gradually switch. Okay, although in this case, it really does not make much sense, so be it. Leave the netvsc set the ->priv flag to IFF_SLAVE as it is doing now. (This once-wrong-forever-wrong policy is flustrating me). But since this patchset introduces private flag IFF_FAILOVER and IFF_FAILOVER_SLAVE, and we set IFF_FAILOVER to the netvsc netdev instance, we should also set IFF_FAILOVER_SLAVE to the enslaved VF netdevice to get at least some consistency between virtio_net and netvsc. > >Anything br...

...g also allows enhanced functionality >> > userspace will gradually switch. >> Okay, although in this case, it really does not make much sense, so be >> it. Leave the netvsc set the ->priv flag to IFF_SLAVE as it is doing >> now. (This once-wrong-forever-wrong policy is flustrating me). >> >> But since this patchset introduces private flag IFF_FAILOVER and >> IFF_FAILOVER_SLAVE, and we set IFF_FAILOVER to the netvsc netdev >> instance, we should also set IFF_FAILOVER_SLAVE to the enslaved VF >> netdevice to get at least some consistency between...