search for: iff_

...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?...

...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?...

...t;(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? > >> > >> No. IFF...

...t;(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? > >> > >> No. IFF...

...gt; >> > > >> >> >> >> >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 s...

...gt; >> > > >> >> >> >> >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 s...

.... 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? >> >> &...

...;> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >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...

...; >> >> >> >> >> >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_FAIL...

...d to set dev->features to enable GSO and/or checksumming, which is supposed to be done before register_netdevice(), ie. as part of TUNSETIFF. Unfortunately, TUNSETIFF has always just ignored flags it doesn't understand, so there's no good way of detecting whether the kernel supports new IFF_ flags. This patch implements a TUNGETFEATURES ioctl which returns all the valid IFF flags. It could be extended later to include other features. Here's an example program which uses it: #include <linux/if_tun.h> #include <sys/types.h> #include <sys/ioctl.h> #include <sy...

...d to set dev->features to enable GSO and/or checksumming, which is supposed to be done before register_netdevice(), ie. as part of TUNSETIFF. Unfortunately, TUNSETIFF has always just ignored flags it doesn't understand, so there's no good way of detecting whether the kernel supports new IFF_ flags. This patch implements a TUNGETFEATURES ioctl which returns all the valid IFF flags. It could be extended later to include other features. Here's an example program which uses it: #include <linux/if_tun.h> #include <sys/types.h> #include <sys/ioctl.h> #include <sy...

...d to set dev->features to enable GSO and/or checksumming, which is supposed to be done before register_netdevice(), ie. as part of TUNSETIFF. Unfortunately, TUNSETIFF has always just ignored flags it doesn't understand, so there's no good way of detecting whether the kernel supports new IFF_ flags. This patch implements a TUNGETFEATURES ioctl which returns all the valid IFF flags. It could be extended later to include other features. Here's an example program which uses it: #include <linux/if_tun.h> #include <sys/types.h> #include <sys/ioctl.h> #include <sy...

...d to set dev->features to enable GSO and/or checksumming, which is supposed to be done before register_netdevice(), ie. as part of TUNSETIFF. Unfortunately, TUNSETIFF has always just ignored flags it doesn't understand, so there's no good way of detecting whether the kernel supports new IFF_ flags. This patch implements a TUNGETFEATURES ioctl which returns all the valid IFF flags. It could be extended later to include other features. Here's an example program which uses it: #include <linux/if_tun.h> #include <sys/types.h> #include <sys/ioctl.h> #include <sy...

On Fri, 23 Aug 2019, 0:27 Laine Stump, <laine@redhat.com> wrote: > (Adding Alex Williamson to Cc so he can correct any mistakes) > > On 8/22/19 4:39 PM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 12:01 PM Laine Stump <laine@redhat.com> wrote: > >> > >> On 8/22/19 10:56 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > >>> On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 2:24 AM