search for: netvsc_vf_join

...e: >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.

...e: >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.

...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 is wrong. > IFF_FAILOVER_SL...

...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 is wrong. > IFF_FAILOVER_SL...

...; >> >> > >> >>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...

...; >> >> > >> >>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...

...upported 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 handler routine. Another compl...

...t;>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...

...t;>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...

...nce(net_device_ctx->vf_netdev) == vf_netdev) - return dev; /* a match */ - } - - return NULL; -} - /* Called when VF is injecting data into network stack. * Change the associated network device from VF to netvsc. * note: already called with rcu_read_lock @@ -1829,39 +1790,15 @@ static int netvsc_vf_join(struct net_device *vf_netdev, struct net_device *ndev) { struct net_device_context *ndev_ctx = netdev_priv(ndev); - int ret; - - ret = netdev_rx_handler_register(vf_netdev, - netvsc_vf_handle_frame, ndev); - if (ret != 0) { - netdev_err(vf_netdev, - "can not register netvsc...

...nce(net_device_ctx->vf_netdev) == vf_netdev) - return dev; /* a match */ - } - - return NULL; -} - /* Called when VF is injecting data into network stack. * Change the associated network device from VF to netvsc. * note: already called with rcu_read_lock @@ -1829,39 +1790,15 @@ static int netvsc_vf_join(struct net_device *vf_netdev, struct net_device *ndev) { struct net_device_context *ndev_ctx = netdev_priv(ndev); - int ret; - - ret = netdev_rx_handler_register(vf_netdev, - netvsc_vf_handle_frame, ndev); - if (ret != 0) { - netdev_err(vf_netdev, - "can not register netvsc...

...ructure. > >> > > > >> > > 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 a...

...ructure. > >> > > > >> > > 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 a...

...t;>> >>>>>>> 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 commoni...

...t;>> >>>>>>> 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 commoni...

...la <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 t...

...la <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 t...

...Called when VF is injecting data into network stack. * Change the associated network device from VF to netvsc. * note: already called with rcu_read_lock @@ -1825,46 +1786,6 @@ static rx_handler_result_t netvsc_vf_handle_frame(struct sk_buff **pskb) return RX_HANDLER_ANOTHER; } -static int netvsc_vf_join(struct net_device *vf_netdev, - struct net_device *ndev) -{ - struct net_device_context *ndev_ctx = netdev_priv(ndev); - int ret; - - ret = netdev_rx_handler_register(vf_netdev, - netvsc_vf_handle_frame, ndev); - if (ret != 0) { - netdev_err(vf_netdev, - "can not register netvsc...

...m> > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >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. > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > >> &...

...m> > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >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. > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > >> &...