search for: iff_failover_slave

...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 @@ enum netdev_priv_flags { > IFF_NO_RX_HANDLER = 1<<26...

...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 @@ enum netdev_priv_flags { > IFF_NO_RX_HANDLER = 1<<26...

...iu wrote: > Hi Sridhar, > > Are you fine with leaving the IFF_SLAVE_RENAME_OK flag as is, and thus > can provide your Ack-by or Reviewed-by? I can change the code if you > feel strong. My preference would be not to introduce a new flag unless there is any usecase where we want a IFF_FAILOVER_SLAVE type of device to support 2 different behaviors. (rename_ok and rename_not_ok) Thanks Sridhar > > Thanks, > -Siwei > > > On 3/6/2019 8:54 PM, si-wei liu wrote: >> >> >> On 3/6/2019 8:13 PM, Samudrala, Sridhar wrote: >>> >>> On 3/6/2019 7:0...

...ex 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 @@ enum netdev_priv_flags { > IFF_NO_RX_HANDLER = 1<&l...

...o 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 can't change netvsc's flags now, even if it's interface is >> messy, it's being us...

...o 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 can't change netvsc's flags now, even if it's interface is >> messy, it's being us...

...0 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 @@ enum netdev_priv_flags { >> IFF_NO_RX_HA...

...nclude/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 @@ enum netdev_priv_flags...

...t; diff --git a/include/linux/netdevice.h b/include/linux/netdevice.h > index 78f5ec4e..ea9a63f 100644 > --- a/include/linux/netdevice.h > +++ b/include/linux/netdevice.h > @@ -1498,6 +1498,7 @@ struct net_device_ops { > * @IFF_FAILOVER: device is a failover master device > * @IFF_FAILOVER_SLAVE: device is lower dev of a failover master device > * @IFF_L3MDEV_RX_HANDLER: only invoke the rx handler of L3 master device > + * @IFF_LIVE_RENAME_OK: rename is allowed while device is up and running > */ > enum netdev_priv_flags { > IFF_802_1Q_VLAN = 1<<0, > @@ -15...

...t; diff --git a/include/linux/netdevice.h b/include/linux/netdevice.h > index 78f5ec4e..ea9a63f 100644 > --- a/include/linux/netdevice.h > +++ b/include/linux/netdevice.h > @@ -1498,6 +1498,7 @@ struct net_device_ops { > * @IFF_FAILOVER: device is a failover master device > * @IFF_FAILOVER_SLAVE: device is lower dev of a failover master device > * @IFF_L3MDEV_RX_HANDLER: only invoke the rx handler of L3 master device > + * @IFF_LIVE_RENAME_OK: rename is allowed while device is up and running > */ > enum netdev_priv_flags { > IFF_802_1Q_VLAN = 1<<0, > @@ -15...

...e 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 can't change netvsc's flags now, even if it's interface is messy, it's being used in the field. We can a...

...e 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 can't change netvsc's flags now, even if it's interface is messy, it's being used in the field. We can a...

...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 @@ enum netdev_priv_flags { > IFF_NO_RX_HANDLER = 1<<26, >...

...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 @@ enum netdev_priv_flags { > IFF_NO_RX_HANDLER = 1<<26...

...t; @@ -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_RX_HANDLER = 1<<26,...

...t; @@ -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_RX_HANDLER = 1<<26,...

...x/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 @@ enum netdev...

...(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

...(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

...; >> > > >> >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 failover? -- MST