search for: netdevs

...t; VF_slave backup_slave >> > > > > >> > > > > Is that correct? If not, how does it look like? >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Looks correct. >> > > > VF_slave and backup_slave are the original netdevs and are present in both the models. >> > > > In the 3 netdev model, bypass_master netdev is created and VF_slave and backup_slave are >> > > > marked as the 2 slaves of this new netdev. >> > > You say it looks correct and in another sentence you provide com...

...t; VF_slave backup_slave >> > > > > >> > > > > Is that correct? If not, how does it look like? >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Looks correct. >> > > > VF_slave and backup_slave are the original netdevs and are present in both the models. >> > > > In the 3 netdev model, bypass_master netdev is created and VF_slave and backup_slave are >> > > > marked as the 2 slaves of this new netdev. >> > > You say it looks correct and in another sentence you provide com...

...> >> > > > > > > Is that correct? If not, how does it look like? >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Looks correct. >> > > > > > VF_slave and backup_slave are the original netdevs and are present in both the models. >> > > > > > In the 3 netdev model, bypass_master netdev is created and VF_slave and backup_slave are >> > > > > > marked as the 2 slaves of this new netdev. >> > > > > You say it looks correct and in an...

...> >> > > > > > > Is that correct? If not, how does it look like? >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Looks correct. >> > > > > > VF_slave and backup_slave are the original netdevs and are present in both the models. >> > > > > > In the 3 netdev model, bypass_master netdev is created and VF_slave and backup_slave are >> > > > > > marked as the 2 slaves of this new netdev. >> > > > > You say it looks correct and in an...

...> Is that correct? If not, how does it look like? >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Looks correct. >> > > > > > > > VF_slave and backup_slave are the original netdevs and are present in both the models. >> > > > > > > > In the 3 netdev model, bypass_master netdev is created and VF_slave and backup_slave are >> > > > > > > > marked as the 2 slaves of this new netdev. >> > > > > > > You...

...> Is that correct? If not, how does it look like? >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Looks correct. >> > > > > > > > VF_slave and backup_slave are the original netdevs and are present in both the models. >> > > > > > > > In the 3 netdev model, bypass_master netdev is created and VF_slave and backup_slave are >> > > > > > > > marked as the 2 slaves of this new netdev. >> > > > > > > You...

Dave Miller mentioned he'd like to see SET_ETHTOOL_OPS gone. This does that. Compile tested only, but I'd seriously wonder if this broke anything. Suggested-by: Dave Miller <davem at davemloft.net> Signed-off-by: Wilfried Klaebe <w-lkml at lebenslange-mailadresse.de> --- Applies against v3.15-rc4. diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_ethtool.c

Dave Miller mentioned he'd like to see SET_ETHTOOL_OPS gone. This does that. Compile tested only, but I'd seriously wonder if this broke anything. Suggested-by: Dave Miller <davem at davemloft.net> Signed-off-by: Wilfried Klaebe <w-lkml at lebenslange-mailadresse.de> --- Applies against v3.15-rc4. diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_ethtool.c

.../ \ >> > > / \ >> > > VF_slave backup_slave >> > > >> > > Is that correct? If not, how does it look like? >> > > >> > > >> > Looks correct. >> > VF_slave and backup_slave are the original netdevs and are present in both the models. >> > In the 3 netdev model, bypass_master netdev is created and VF_slave and backup_slave are >> > marked as the 2 slaves of this new netdev. >> You say it looks correct and in another sentence you provide completely >> different des...

.../ \ >> > > / \ >> > > VF_slave backup_slave >> > > >> > > Is that correct? If not, how does it look like? >> > > >> > > >> > Looks correct. >> > VF_slave and backup_slave are the original netdevs and are present in both the models. >> > In the 3 netdev model, bypass_master netdev is created and VF_slave and backup_slave are >> > marked as the 2 slaves of this new netdev. >> You say it looks correct and in another sentence you provide completely >> different des...

net: get rid of SET_ETHTOOL_OPS Dave Miller mentioned he'd like to see SET_ETHTOOL_OPS gone. This does that. Mostly done via coccinelle script: @@ struct ethtool_ops *ops; struct net_device *dev; @@ - SET_ETHTOOL_OPS(dev, ops); + dev->ethtool_ops = ops; Compile tested only, but I'd seriously wonder if this broke anything. Suggested-by: Dave Miller <davem at

net: get rid of SET_ETHTOOL_OPS Dave Miller mentioned he'd like to see SET_ETHTOOL_OPS gone. This does that. Mostly done via coccinelle script: @@ struct ethtool_ops *ops; struct net_device *dev; @@ - SET_ETHTOOL_OPS(dev, ops); + dev->ethtool_ops = ops; Compile tested only, but I'd seriously wonder if this broke anything. Suggested-by: Dave Miller <davem at

net: get rid of SET_ETHTOOL_OPS Dave Miller mentioned he'd like to see SET_ETHTOOL_OPS gone. This does that. Mostly done via coccinelle script: @@ struct ethtool_ops *ops; struct net_device *dev; @@ - SET_ETHTOOL_OPS(dev, ops); + dev->ethtool_ops = ops; Compile tested only, but I'd seriously wonder if this broke anything. Suggested-by: Dave Miller <davem at

...v is created that acts a master device and controls 2 > slave devices. The original virtio_net netdev is registered as 'standby' > netdev and a passthru/vf device with the same MAC gets registered as > 'primary' netdev. Both 'standby' and 'failover' netdevs are associated > with the same 'pci' device. The user accesses the network interface via > 'failover' netdev. The 'failover' netdev chooses 'primary' netdev as > default for transmits when it is available with link up and running. > 2. For exist...

SET_ETHTOOL_OPS is equivalent to : #define SET_ETHTOOL_OPS(netdev,ops) \ ( (netdev)->ethtool_ops = (ops) ) how it makes difference removing this code and replacing with the code mentioned ? On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Wilfried Klaebe <w-lkml at lebenslange-mailadresse.de> wrote: > net: get rid of SET_ETHTOOL_OPS > > Dave Miller mentioned he'd like to see

SET_ETHTOOL_OPS is equivalent to : #define SET_ETHTOOL_OPS(netdev,ops) \ ( (netdev)->ethtool_ops = (ops) ) how it makes difference removing this code and replacing with the code mentioned ? On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Wilfried Klaebe <w-lkml at lebenslange-mailadresse.de> wrote: > net: get rid of SET_ETHTOOL_OPS > > Dave Miller mentioned he'd like to see

I think that it may be appropriate to submit this patch for linux-next instead of 3.15-rc4... On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Wilfried Klaebe <w-lkml at lebenslange-mailadresse.de> wrote: > Dave Miller mentioned he'd like to see SET_ETHTOOL_OPS gone. > This does that. > > Compile tested only, but I'd seriously wonder if this broke anything. > > Suggested-by: Dave

...39; netdev that acts as a master device and controls >> 2 slave devices. The original virtio_net netdev is registered as >> 'backup' netdev and a passthru/vf device with the same MAC gets >> registered as 'active' netdev. Both 'bypass' and 'backup' netdevs are >> associated with the same 'pci' device. The user accesses the network >> interface via 'bypass' netdev. The 'bypass' netdev chooses 'active' netdev >> as default for transmits when it is available with link up and running. > > Thank you...

...39; netdev that acts as a master device and controls >> 2 slave devices. The original virtio_net netdev is registered as >> 'backup' netdev and a passthru/vf device with the same MAC gets >> registered as 'active' netdev. Both 'bypass' and 'backup' netdevs are >> associated with the same 'pci' device. The user accesses the network >> interface via 'bypass' netdev. The 'bypass' netdev chooses 'active' netdev >> as default for transmits when it is available with link up and running. > > Thank you...

...gt; VF_slave >> >> 3netdev: >> bypass_master >> / \ >> / \ >> VF_slave backup_slave >> >> Is that correct? If not, how does it look like? >> >> >Looks correct. >VF_slave and backup_slave are the original netdevs and are present in both the models. >In the 3 netdev model, bypass_master netdev is created and VF_slave and backup_slave are >marked as the 2 slaves of this new netdev. You say it looks correct and in another sentence you provide completely different description. Could you please look again...