search for: netif_is_bond_mast

...same MAC registering as slave dev */ >>>>>>>> + if ((dev->priv_flags & IFF_BONDING) && (dev->flags & IFF_MASTER)) >>>>>>> Yeah, this is certainly incorrect. One thing is, you should be using 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 fl...

...th same MAC registering as slave dev */ >> >> > > > + if ((dev->priv_flags & IFF_BONDING) && (dev->flags & IFF_MASTER)) >> >> > > Yeah, this is certainly incorrect. One thing is, you should be using 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 flavo...

...th same MAC registering as slave dev */ >> >> > > > + if ((dev->priv_flags & IFF_BONDING) && (dev->flags & IFF_MASTER)) >> >> > > Yeah, this is certainly incorrect. One thing is, you should be using 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 flavo...

...Avoid Bonding master dev with same MAC registering as slave dev */ >> > > > + if ((dev->priv_flags & IFF_BONDING) && (dev->flags & IFF_MASTER)) >> > > Yeah, this is certainly incorrect. One thing is, you should be using 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. &...

...Avoid Bonding master dev with same MAC registering as slave dev */ >> > > > + if ((dev->priv_flags & IFF_BONDING) && (dev->flags & IFF_MASTER)) >> > > Yeah, this is certainly incorrect. One thing is, you should be using 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. &...

...;>>> + /* Avoid Bonding master dev with same MAC registering as slave dev */ >>>> + if ((dev->priv_flags & IFF_BONDING) && (dev->flags & IFF_MASTER)) >>> Yeah, this is certainly incorrect. One thing is, you should be using 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...

...gt; > + >> > + /* Avoid Bonding master dev with same MAC registering as slave dev */ >> > + if ((dev->priv_flags & IFF_BONDING) && (dev->flags & IFF_MASTER)) >> Yeah, this is certainly incorrect. One thing is, you should be using 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_lowe...

...gt; > + >> > + /* Avoid Bonding master dev with same MAC registering as slave dev */ >> > + if ((dev->priv_flags & IFF_BONDING) && (dev->flags & IFF_MASTER)) >> Yeah, this is certainly incorrect. One thing is, you should be using 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_lowe...

...aster dev with same MAC registering as slave dev */ > >> > > > + if ((dev->priv_flags & IFF_BONDING) && (dev->flags & IFF_MASTER)) > >> > > Yeah, this is certainly incorrect. One thing is, you should be using 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 mig...

...f (is_vlan_dev(dev)) >+ return false; >+ >+ /* Avoid Bonding master dev with same MAC registering as slave dev */ >+ if ((dev->priv_flags & IFF_BONDING) && (dev->flags & IFF_MASTER)) Yeah, this is certainly incorrect. One thing is, you should be using 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. >+ return false; >+ >+ return true; >+} >+ >+static int...

...f (is_vlan_dev(dev)) >+ return false; >+ >+ /* Avoid Bonding master dev with same MAC registering as slave dev */ >+ if ((dev->priv_flags & IFF_BONDING) && (dev->flags & IFF_MASTER)) Yeah, this is certainly incorrect. One thing is, you should be using 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. >+ return false; >+ >+ return true; >+} >+ >+static int...

...+ return false; >> + >> + /* Avoid Bonding master dev with same MAC registering as slave dev */ >> + if ((dev->priv_flags & IFF_BONDING) && (dev->flags & IFF_MASTER)) > Yeah, this is certainly incorrect. One thing is, you should be using 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 su...

The main motivation for this patch is to enable cloud service providers to provide an accelerated datapath to virtio-net enabled VMs in a transparent manner with no/minimal guest userspace changes. This also enables hypervisor controlled live migration to be supported with VMs that have direct attached SR-IOV VF devices. Patch 1 introduces a new feature bit VIRTIO_NET_F_BACKUP that can be used