search for: 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 and IFF_SLAVE? > >> > >> No. IFF_SLAVE is for bonding. > > > >What breaks if we reuse it for 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_FAILOVER_SLAVE and set both IFF_FAILOVER and IFF_SLAVE? > >> > >> No. IFF_SLAVE is for bonding. > > > >What breaks if we reuse it for failover? &...

...t;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. > >> &g...

...t;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. > >> &g...

..., 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 failover? -- MST

..., 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 failover? -- MST

..."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? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> N...

..."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? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> N...

...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 bondi...

...uot; 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 and IFF_SLAVE? >> >> >> >> No. IFF_SLAVE is for bonding. >> > >> >What breaks if...

..._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

..._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

...;> + IFF_FAILOVER_SLAVE = 1<<28, > >> }; > > Why is FAILOVER any different than other master/slave relationships. > > I don't think you need to take up precious netdev flag bits for this. > > These are netdev priv flags. > Jiri says that IFF_MASTER/IFF_SLAVE are bonding specific flags and cannot be used > with other failover mechanisms. Team also doesn't use this flags and it has its own > priv_flags. > This change breaks userspace. We already have worked with partners to ignore devices marked as IFF_SLAVE, and IFF_SLAVE is visible to us...

...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 can't change netvsc's flags now, even if...

...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 can't change netvsc's flags now, even if...

On Thu, 24 May 2018 09:55:13 -0700 Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala at intel.com> wrote: > diff --git a/include/linux/netdevice.h b/include/linux/netdevice.h > index 03ed492c4e14..0f4ba52b641d 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)

On Thu, 24 May 2018 09:55:13 -0700 Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala at intel.com> wrote: > diff --git a/include/linux/netdevice.h b/include/linux/netdevice.h > index 03ed492c4e14..0f4ba52b641d 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)

...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 failover? This is exposed to userspace. IFF_S...

...ould 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 can't change netvsc's flags now, even if it's interface is...