search for: netdev_has_lower_dev

...m, bridge, ovs and others? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You need to do it not by blacklisting, but with whitelisting. You need >>>>>>> to whitelist VF devices. My port flavours patchset might help with this. >>>>>> May be i can use netdev_has_lower_dev() helper to make sure that the slave >>>>> I don't see such function in the code. >>>> It is netdev_has_any_lower_dev(). I need to export it. >>> Come on, you cannot use that. That would allow bonding without slaves, >>> but the slaves could be added...

...team, bridge, ovs and others? >> >> > > >> >> > > You need to do it not by blacklisting, but with whitelisting. You need >> >> > > to whitelist VF devices. My port flavours patchset might help with this. >> >> > May be i can use netdev_has_lower_dev() helper to make sure that the slave >> >> I don't see such function in the code. >> > >> >It is netdev_has_any_lower_dev(). I need to export it. >> >> Come on, you cannot use that. That would allow bonding without slaves, >> but the slaves could...

...team, bridge, ovs and others? >> >> > > >> >> > > You need to do it not by blacklisting, but with whitelisting. You need >> >> > > to whitelist VF devices. My port flavours patchset might help with this. >> >> > May be i can use netdev_has_lower_dev() helper to make sure that the slave >> >> I don't see such function in the code. >> > >> >It is netdev_has_any_lower_dev(). I need to export it. >> >> Come on, you cannot use that. That would allow bonding without slaves, >> but the slaves could...

...hat about the rest? macsec, macvlan, team, bridge, ovs and others? >> > > >> > > You need to do it not by blacklisting, but with whitelisting. You need >> > > to whitelist VF devices. My port flavours patchset might help with this. >> > May be i can use netdev_has_lower_dev() helper to make sure that the slave >> I don't see such function in the code. > >It is netdev_has_any_lower_dev(). I need to export it. Come on, you cannot use that. That would allow bonding without slaves, but the slaves could be added later on. What exactly you are trying to ac...

...hat about the rest? macsec, macvlan, team, bridge, ovs and others? >> > > >> > > You need to do it not by blacklisting, but with whitelisting. You need >> > > to whitelist VF devices. My port flavours patchset might help with this. >> > May be i can use netdev_has_lower_dev() helper to make sure that the slave >> I don't see such function in the code. > >It is netdev_has_any_lower_dev(). I need to export it. Come on, you cannot use that. That would allow bonding without slaves, but the slaves could be added later on. What exactly you are trying to ac...

...er(). >>> But what about the rest? macsec, macvlan, team, bridge, ovs and others? >>> >>> You need to do it not by blacklisting, but with whitelisting. You need >>> to whitelist VF devices. My port flavours patchset might help with this. >> May be i can use netdev_has_lower_dev() helper to make sure that the slave > I don't see such function in the code. It is netdev_has_any_lower_dev(). I need to export it. > > >> device is not an upper dev. >> Can you point to your port flavours patchset? Is it upstream? > I sent rfc couple of weeks ago: &g...

...if_is_bond_master(). >> But what about the rest? macsec, macvlan, team, bridge, ovs and others? >> >> You need to do it not by blacklisting, but with whitelisting. You need >> to whitelist VF devices. My port flavours patchset might help with this. > >May be i can use netdev_has_lower_dev() helper to make sure that the slave I don't see such function in the code. >device is not an upper dev. >Can you point to your port flavours patchset? Is it upstream? I sent rfc couple of weeks ago: [patch net-next RFC 00/12] devlink: introduce port flavours and common phys_port_name...

...if_is_bond_master(). >> But what about the rest? macsec, macvlan, team, bridge, ovs and others? >> >> You need to do it not by blacklisting, but with whitelisting. You need >> to whitelist VF devices. My port flavours patchset might help with this. > >May be i can use netdev_has_lower_dev() helper to make sure that the slave I don't see such function in the code. >device is not an upper dev. >Can you point to your port flavours patchset? Is it upstream? I sent rfc couple of weeks ago: [patch net-next RFC 00/12] devlink: introduce port flavours and common phys_port_name...

...macsec, macvlan, team, bridge, ovs and others? > >> > > > >> > > You need to do it not by blacklisting, but with whitelisting. You need > >> > > to whitelist VF devices. My port flavours patchset might help with this. > >> > May be i can use netdev_has_lower_dev() helper to make sure that the slave > >> I don't see such function in the code. > > > >It is netdev_has_any_lower_dev(). I need to export it. > > Come on, you cannot use that. That would allow bonding without slaves, > but the slaves could be added later on. >...

...sing the > helpers netif_is_bond_master(). > But what about the rest? macsec, macvlan, team, bridge, ovs and others? > > You need to do it not by blacklisting, but with whitelisting. You need > to whitelist VF devices. My port flavours patchset might help with this. May be i can use netdev_has_lower_dev() helper to make sure that the slave device is not an upper dev. Can you point to your port flavours patchset? Is it upstream? > > >> + return false; >> + >> + return true; >> +} >> + >> +static int >> +bypass_event(struct notifier_block *this, unsi...

Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 08:59:48PM CEST, sridhar.samudrala at intel.com wrote: >This provides a generic interface for paravirtual drivers to listen >for netdev register/unregister/link change events from pci ethernet >devices with the same MAC and takeover their datapath. The notifier and >event handling code is based on the existing netvsc implementation. > >It exposes 2 sets of

Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 08:59:48PM CEST, sridhar.samudrala at intel.com wrote: >This provides a generic interface for paravirtual drivers to listen >for netdev register/unregister/link change events from pci ethernet >devices with the same MAC and takeover their datapath. The notifier and >event handling code is based on the existing netvsc implementation. > >It exposes 2 sets of