search for: iff_failov

...e/linux/netdevice.h > +++ b/include/linux/netdevice.h > @@ -1421,6 +1421,8 @@ struct net_device_ops { > * entity (i.e. the master device for bridged veth) > * @IFF_MACSEC: device is a MACsec device > * @IFF_NO_RX_HANDLER: device doesn't support the rx_handler hook > + * @IFF_FAILOVER: device is a failover master device > + * @IFF_FAILOVER_SLAVE: device is lower dev of a failover master device > */ > enum netdev_priv_flags { > IFF_802_1Q_VLAN = 1<<0, > @@ -1450,6 +1452,8 @@ enum netdev_priv_flags { > IFF_PHONY_HEADROOM = 1<<24, > IF...

...e/linux/netdevice.h > +++ b/include/linux/netdevice.h > @@ -1421,6 +1421,8 @@ struct net_device_ops { > * entity (i.e. the master device for bridged veth) > * @IFF_MACSEC: device is a MACsec device > * @IFF_NO_RX_HANDLER: device doesn't support the rx_handler hook > + * @IFF_FAILOVER: device is a failover master device > + * @IFF_FAILOVER_SLAVE: device is lower dev of a failover master device > */ > enum netdev_priv_flags { > IFF_802_1Q_VLAN = 1<<0, > @@ -1450,6 +1452,8 @@ enum netdev_priv_flags { > IFF_PHONY_HEADROOM = 1<<24, > IF...

...mon 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

...mon 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

...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? > > No. IFF_SLAVE is for bonding. What breaks if we reuse it for failo...

...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? > > No. IFF_SLAVE is for bonding. What breaks if we reuse it for failo...

...sc mess now. >>> >>> >>>> 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. >>> The existing netvsc...

...sc mess now. >>> >>> >>>> 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. >>> The existing netvsc...

...include/linux/netdevice.h b/include/linux/netdevice.h > index 857f8ab..6d9e4e0 100644 > --- a/include/linux/netdevice.h > +++ b/include/linux/netdevice.h > @@ -1487,6 +1487,7 @@ struct net_device_ops { > * @IFF_NO_RX_HANDLER: device doesn't support the rx_handler hook > * @IFF_FAILOVER: device is a failover master device > * @IFF_FAILOVER_SLAVE: device is lower dev of a failover master device > + * @IFF_SLAVE_RENAME_OK: rename is allowed while slave device is running > */ > enum netdev_priv_flags { > IFF_802_1Q_VLAN = 1<<0, > @@ -1518,6 +1519,7...

...include/linux/netdevice.h b/include/linux/netdevice.h > index 857f8ab..6d9e4e0 100644 > --- a/include/linux/netdevice.h > +++ b/include/linux/netdevice.h > @@ -1487,6 +1487,7 @@ struct net_device_ops { > * @IFF_NO_RX_HANDLER: device doesn't support the rx_handler hook > * @IFF_FAILOVER: device is a failover master device > * @IFF_FAILOVER_SLAVE: device is lower dev of a failover master device > + * @IFF_SLAVE_RENAME_OK: rename is allowed while slave device is running > */ > enum netdev_priv_flags { > IFF_802_1Q_VLAN = 1<<0, > @@ -1518,6 +1519,7...

...erly and fix the netvsc mess now. > > > > > >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. > > The existing netvsc driver. We really ca...

...erly and fix the netvsc mess now. > > > > > >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. > > The existing netvsc driver. We really ca...

...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_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_SLAVE...

...device.h > >> @@ -1421,6 +1421,8 @@ struct net_device_ops { > >> * entity (i.e. the master device for bridged veth) > >> * @IFF_MACSEC: device is a MACsec device > >> * @IFF_NO_RX_HANDLER: device doesn't support the rx_handler hook > >> + * @IFF_FAILOVER: device is a failover master device > >> + * @IFF_FAILOVER_SLAVE: device is lower dev of a failover master device > >> */ > >> enum netdev_priv_flags { > >> IFF_802_1Q_VLAN = 1<<0, > >> @@ -1450,6 +1452,8 @@ enum netdev_priv_flags { &gt...

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,

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,

...4ba52b641d 100644 --- a/include/linux/netdevice.h +++ b/include/linux/netdevice.h @@ -1421,6 +1421,8 @@ struct net_device_ops { * entity (i.e. the master device for bridged veth) * @IFF_MACSEC: device is a MACsec device * @IFF_NO_RX_HANDLER: device doesn't support the rx_handler hook + * @IFF_FAILOVER: device is a failover master device + * @IFF_FAILOVER_SLAVE: device is lower dev of a failover master device */ enum netdev_priv_flags { IFF_802_1Q_VLAN = 1<<0, @@ -1450,6 +1452,8 @@ enum netdev_priv_flags { IFF_PHONY_HEADROOM = 1<<24, IFF_MACSEC = 1<<25, IFF_NO_...

...clude/linux/netdevice.h b/include/linux/netdevice.h > index 857f8ab..6d9e4e0 100644 > --- a/include/linux/netdevice.h > +++ b/include/linux/netdevice.h > @@ -1487,6 +1487,7 @@ struct net_device_ops { > * @IFF_NO_RX_HANDLER: device doesn't support the rx_handler hook > * @IFF_FAILOVER: device is a failover master device > * @IFF_FAILOVER_SLAVE: device is lower dev of a failover master device > + * @IFF_SLAVE_RENAME_OK: rename is allowed while slave device is running > */ > enum netdev_priv_flags { > IFF_802_1Q_VLAN = 1<<0, > @@ -1518,6 +151...

...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? > &...