search for: netdev_upper_dev_link

..._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_dev_link(slave_dev, failover_dev, NULL); > >Please use netdev_master_upper_dev_link(). Don't forget to fillup struct netdev_lag_upper_info - NETDEV_LAG_TX_TYPE_ACTIVEBACKUP Also, please call netdev_lower_state_changed() when the active slave device changes from primary->backup of backup->...

..._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_dev_link(slave_dev, failover_dev, NULL); > >Please use netdev_master_upper_dev_link(). Don't forget to fillup struct netdev_lag_upper_info - NETDEV_LAG_TX_TYPE_ACTIVEBACKUP Also, please call netdev_lower_state_changed() when the active slave device changes from primary->backup of backup->...

...r.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.

...r.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.

...on/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 slave you use IFF_SLAVE. That...

...on/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 slave you use IFF_SLAVE. That...

...; >> >>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...

...; >> >>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...

...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 the notifier and the main event...

...gt; >> >> >> > >> >> >>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...

...gt; >> >> >> > >> >> >>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...

...; > > > > + if (err) { > > > > + netdev_err(slave_dev, "can not register failover rx handler (err = %d)\n", > > > > + err); > > > > + goto err_handler_register; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + err = netdev_upper_dev_link(slave_dev, failover_dev, NULL); > > > Please use netdev_master_upper_dev_link(). > > Don't forget to fillup struct netdev_lag_upper_info - NETDEV_LAG_TX_TYPE_ACTIVEBACKUP > > > > > > Also, please call netdev_lower_state_changed() when the active slave > &gt...

...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...

...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...

...t;>> 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 chan...

...t;>> 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 chan...

...>> >> >> >>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...

...>> >> >> >>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...

...>>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. > >> >> >> >...

...>>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. > >> >> >> >...