search for: netdev_rx_handler_regist

...l.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, this is still done in netvsc. Why? >> >> This should be part of the common "failover" code. Based on Stephen's feedback on earlier patches, i tried to minimize the changes to netvsc and only commonize t...

Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 11:06:01AM CEST, jiri at resnulli.us wrote: >Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 07:06:58PM CEST, sridhar.samudrala at intel.com wrote: [...] >>+ >>+ err = netdev_rx_handler_register(slave_dev, net_failover_handle_frame, >>+ failover_dev); >>+ if (err) { >>+ netdev_err(slave_dev, "can not register failover rx handler (err = %d)\n", >>+ err); >>+ goto err_handler_register; >>+ } >>+ >>+ err = netdev_upper_de...

Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 11:06:01AM CEST, jiri at resnulli.us wrote: >Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 07:06:58PM CEST, sridhar.samudrala at intel.com wrote: [...] >>+ >>+ err = netdev_rx_handler_register(slave_dev, net_failover_handle_frame, >>+ failover_dev); >>+ if (err) { >>+ netdev_err(slave_dev, "can not register failover rx handler (err = %d)\n", >>+ err); >>+ goto err_handler_register; >>+ } >>+ >>+ err = netdev_upper_de...

...ation 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, this is still done in netvsc. Why? > >> > > >> > This should be part of the common "failover" code. > > > >Based on Stephen's feedback on earlier patches, i tried to mi...

...ation 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, this is still done in netvsc. Why? > >> > > >> > This should be part of the common "failover" code. > > > >Based on Stephen's feedback on earlier patches, i tried to mi...

..., 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, this is still done in netvsc. Why? This should be part of the common "failover" code.

..., 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, this is still done in netvsc. Why? This should be part of the common "failover" code.

...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, this is still done in netvsc. Why? >>>>>> >>>>>> This should be part of the common "failover" code. >>>> Based on Stephen's feedback on earlier patches...

...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, this is still done in netvsc. Why? >>>>>> >>>>>> This should be part of the common "failover" code. >>>> Based on Stephen's feedback on earlier patches...

...: > >>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, 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...

...: > >>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, 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...

...work 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, this is still done in netvsc. Why? > >> > > >> >This should be part of the common "failover" code. > >> > > >> > >> Also note that in the current patchset...

...work 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, this is still done in netvsc. Why? > >> > > >> >This should be part of the common "failover" code. > >> > > >> > >> Also note that in the current patchset...

...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, this is still done in netvsc. Why? >> > >> > This should be part of the common "failover" code. > >Based on Stephen's feedback on earlier patches, i tried to minimize the changes to &gt...

...gt;>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, this is still done in netvsc. Why? > >> >> > > >> >> >This should be part of the common "failover" code. > >> >> > > >> >> > &gt...

...gt;>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, this is still done in netvsc. Why? > >> >> > > >> >> >This should be part of the common "failover" code. > >> >> > > >> >> > &gt...

...> On 5/2/2018 9:15 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: > > Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 11:06:01AM CEST, jiri at resnulli.us wrote: > > > Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 07:06:58PM CEST, sridhar.samudrala at intel.com wrote: > > [...] > > > > > > > > + > > > > + err = netdev_rx_handler_register(slave_dev, net_failover_handle_frame, > > > > + failover_dev); > > > > + if (err) { > > > > + netdev_err(slave_dev, "can not register failover rx handler (err = %d)\n", > > > > + err); > > > > + goto err_handler_reg...

...orted 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, this is still done in netvsc. Why? >> >> > >> >> > This should be part of the common "failover" code. >> > >> >Based on Stephen's feedback on earlier pa...

...> 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, this is still done in netvsc. Why? >> > > > > > >> > > > > > This should be part of the common "failover" code. >> > > > Based on Stephe...

...>> >> >> > >> >> >> >>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, this is still done in netvsc. Why? > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >This should be part of the common "failover" code. > >> >> >> &...