search for: kernel_net_failover_slav

...le I'd say yes, easy to implement probably no. But maybe I >>> missed a trick or two. >> >> BTW, from a practical point of view, I think that even until we figure out a solution on how to implement this, >> it was better to create an kernel auto-generated name (e.g. ?kernel_net_failover_slaves") >> that will break only userspace workloads that by a very rare-chance have a netns that collides with this then >> the breakage we have today for the various userspace components. >> >> -Liran > > It seems quite easy to supply that as a module parameter. Do...

...le I'd say yes, easy to implement probably no. But maybe I >>> missed a trick or two. >> >> BTW, from a practical point of view, I think that even until we figure out a solution on how to implement this, >> it was better to create an kernel auto-generated name (e.g. ?kernel_net_failover_slaves") >> that will break only userspace workloads that by a very rare-chance have a netns that collides with this then >> the breakage we have today for the various userspace components. >> >> -Liran > > It seems quite easy to supply that as a module parameter. Do...

...>> -Liran > > Reasonable I'd say yes, easy to implement probably no. But maybe I > missed a trick or two. BTW, from a practical point of view, I think that even until we figure out a solution on how to implement this, it was better to create an kernel auto-generated name (e.g. ?kernel_net_failover_slaves") that will break only userspace workloads that by a very rare-chance have a netns that collides with this then the breakage we have today for the various userspace components. -Liran > >>> >>>>> >>>>>> Therefore, this proposal just effective...

...>> -Liran > > Reasonable I'd say yes, easy to implement probably no. But maybe I > missed a trick or two. BTW, from a practical point of view, I think that even until we figure out a solution on how to implement this, it was better to create an kernel auto-generated name (e.g. ?kernel_net_failover_slaves") that will break only userspace workloads that by a very rare-chance have a netns that collides with this then the breakage we have today for the various userspace components. -Liran > >>> >>>>> >>>>>> Therefore, this proposal just effective...

...ement probably no. But maybe I >>>>> missed a trick or two. >>>> >>>> BTW, from a practical point of view, I think that even until we figure out a solution on how to implement this, >>>> it was better to create an kernel auto-generated name (e.g. ?kernel_net_failover_slaves") >>>> that will break only userspace workloads that by a very rare-chance have a netns that collides with this then >>>> the breakage we have today for the various userspace components. >>>> >>>> -Liran >>> >>> It seems qui...

...ement probably no. But maybe I >>>>> missed a trick or two. >>>> >>>> BTW, from a practical point of view, I think that even until we figure out a solution on how to implement this, >>>> it was better to create an kernel auto-generated name (e.g. ?kernel_net_failover_slaves") >>>> that will break only userspace workloads that by a very rare-chance have a netns that collides with this then >>>> the breakage we have today for the various userspace components. >>>> >>>> -Liran >>> >>> It seems qui...

...; > Reasonable I'd say yes, easy to implement probably no. But maybe I > > missed a trick or two. > > BTW, from a practical point of view, I think that even until we figure out a solution on how to implement this, > it was better to create an kernel auto-generated name (e.g. ?kernel_net_failover_slaves") > that will break only userspace workloads that by a very rare-chance have a netns that collides with this then > the breakage we have today for the various userspace components. > > -Liran It seems quite easy to supply that as a module parameter. Do we need two namespaces th...

...gt;>>>>>> missed a trick or two. >>>>>> >>>>>> BTW, from a practical point of view, I think that even until we figure out a solution on how to implement this, >>>>>> it was better to create an kernel auto-generated name (e.g. ?kernel_net_failover_slaves") >>>>>> that will break only userspace workloads that by a very rare-chance have a netns that collides with this then >>>>>> the breakage we have today for the various userspace components. >>>>>> >>>>>> -Liran >&gt...

...gt;>>>>>> missed a trick or two. >>>>>> >>>>>> BTW, from a practical point of view, I think that even until we figure out a solution on how to implement this, >>>>>> it was better to create an kernel auto-generated name (e.g. ?kernel_net_failover_slaves") >>>>>> that will break only userspace workloads that by a very rare-chance have a netns that collides with this then >>>>>> the breakage we have today for the various userspace components. >>>>>> >>>>>> -Liran >&gt...

...easy to implement probably no. But maybe I > >>> missed a trick or two. > >> > >> BTW, from a practical point of view, I think that even until we figure out a solution on how to implement this, > >> it was better to create an kernel auto-generated name (e.g. ?kernel_net_failover_slaves") > >> that will break only userspace workloads that by a very rare-chance have a netns that collides with this then > >> the breakage we have today for the various userspace components. > >> > >> -Liran > > > > It seems quite easy to supply...

...gt; missed a trick or two. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> BTW, from a practical point of view, I think that even until we figure out a solution on how to implement this, >>>>>>>> it was better to create an kernel auto-generated name (e.g. ?kernel_net_failover_slaves") >>>>>>>> that will break only userspace workloads that by a very rare-chance have a netns that collides with this then >>>>>>>> the breakage we have today for the various userspace components. >>>>>>>> >>>&gt...

...gt; missed a trick or two. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> BTW, from a practical point of view, I think that even until we figure out a solution on how to implement this, >>>>>>>> it was better to create an kernel auto-generated name (e.g. ?kernel_net_failover_slaves") >>>>>>>> that will break only userspace workloads that by a very rare-chance have a netns that collides with this then >>>>>>>> the breakage we have today for the various userspace components. >>>>>>>> >>>&gt...

...ut maybe I > >>>>> missed a trick or two. > >>>> > >>>> BTW, from a practical point of view, I think that even until we figure out a solution on how to implement this, > >>>> it was better to create an kernel auto-generated name (e.g. ?kernel_net_failover_slaves") > >>>> that will break only userspace workloads that by a very rare-chance have a netns that collides with this then > >>>> the breakage we have today for the various userspace components. > >>>> > >>>> -Liran > >>>...

...>>> missed a trick or two. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> BTW, from a practical point of view, I think that even until we figure out a solution on how to implement this, > >>>>>> it was better to create an kernel auto-generated name (e.g. ?kernel_net_failover_slaves") > >>>>>> that will break only userspace workloads that by a very rare-chance have a netns that collides with this then > >>>>>> the breakage we have today for the various userspace components. > >>>>>> > >>>>&gt...

...ick or two. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> BTW, from a practical point of view, I think that even until we figure out a solution on how to implement this, > >>>>>>>> it was better to create an kernel auto-generated name (e.g. ?kernel_net_failover_slaves") > >>>>>>>> that will break only userspace workloads that by a very rare-chance have a netns that collides with this then > >>>>>>>> the breakage we have today for the various userspace components. > >>>>>>>>...

> On 21 Mar 2019, at 0:10, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 11:43:41PM +0200, Liran Alon wrote: >> >> >>> On 20 Mar 2019, at 16:09, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 02:23:36PM +0200, Liran Alon wrote: >>>> >>>>

> On 21 Mar 2019, at 0:10, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 11:43:41PM +0200, Liran Alon wrote: >> >> >>> On 20 Mar 2019, at 16:09, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 02:23:36PM +0200, Liran Alon wrote: >>>> >>>>