Virtualization - May 2018 - [PATCH net-next v11 2/5] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling code to use the failover framework

On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:08:53AM +0200, Jiri Pirko
wrote:
> Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:06:37AM CEST, jiri at resnulli.us wrote:
> >Tue, May 22, 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.
> >
> 
> 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_SLAVE should be used.
Or drop IFF_FAILOVER_SLAVE and set both IFF_FAILOVER and IFF_SLAVE?

-- 
MST

Tue, May 22, 2018 at 03:12:40PM CEST, mst at redhat.com
wrote:
>On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:08:53AM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:06:37AM CEST, jiri at resnulli.us wrote:
>> >Tue, May 22, 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.
>> >
>> 
>> 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_SLAVE should be used.
>
>Or drop IFF_FAILOVER_SLAVE and set both IFF_FAILOVER and IFF_SLAVE?
No. IFF_SLAVE is for bonding.

On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 03:14:22PM +0200, Jiri Pirko
wrote:
> Tue, May 22, 2018 at 03:12:40PM CEST, mst at redhat.com wrote:
> >On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:08:53AM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >> Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:06:37AM CEST, jiri at resnulli.us wrote:
> >> >Tue, May 22, 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.
> >> >
> >> 
> >> 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_SLAVE should be used.
> >
> >Or drop IFF_FAILOVER_SLAVE and set both IFF_FAILOVER and IFF_SLAVE?
> 
> No. IFF_SLAVE is for bonding.
What breaks if we reuse it for failover?

-- 
MST