Virtualization - May 2018 - [PATCH net-next v12 2/5] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling code to use the failover framework

On Thu, 24 May 2018 09:55:14 -0700
Sridhar Samudrala <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>
Why was this merged? It was never signed off by any of the netvsc maintainers,
and there were still issues unresolved.

There are also namespaces issues I am fixing and this breaks them.
Will start my patch set with a revert for this. Sorry

On 5/30/2018 7:06 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2018 09:55:14 -0700
> Sridhar Samudrala <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>
> Why was this merged? It was never signed off by any of the netvsc
maintainers,
> and there were still issues unresolved.
>
> There are also namespaces issues I am fixing and this breaks them.
> Will start my patch set with a revert for this. Sorry
I would appreciate if you can make the fixes on top of this patch series. I
tried hard
to make sure that netvsc functionality and behavior doesn't change.

It is possible that there could be some bugs introduced, but they can be fixed.
Looks like Wei already found a bug and submitted a fix for that.

On Wed, 30 May 2018 20:03:11 -0700
"Samudrala, Sridhar" <sridhar.samudrala at intel.com> wrote:
> On 5/30/2018 7:06 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 May 2018 09:55:14 -0700
> > Sridhar Samudrala <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>
> > Why was this merged? It was never signed off by any of the netvsc
maintainers,
> > and there were still issues unresolved.
> >
> > There are also namespaces issues I am fixing and this breaks them.
> > Will start my patch set with a revert for this. Sorry  
> 
> I would appreciate if you can make the fixes on top of this patch series. I
tried hard
> to make sure that netvsc functionality and behavior doesn't change.
> 
> It is possible that there could be some bugs introduced, but they can be
fixed.
> Looks like Wei already found a bug and submitted a fix for that.
> 
Ok, but several of these may clash with what you want for virtio.
Like:
	- VF should be moved to namespace of virt device
	- VF should be associated based on message from host with serial # not
	  registration notifier and MAC address.
	- control operations should use master device reference rather than
	  searching based on MAC.

As you can see these are structural changes.

On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 10:06:35PM -0400, Stephen Hemminger
wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2018 09:55:14 -0700
> Sridhar Samudrala <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>
> 
> Why was this merged? It was never signed off by any of the netvsc
maintainers,
> and there were still issues unresolved.
> 
> There are also namespaces issues I am fixing and this breaks them.
> Will start my patch set with a revert for this. Sorry
As long as you finish the patch set with re-integrating with failover,
that's fine IMHO.

I suspect it's easier to add the code to failover though - namespace
things likely affect virtio as well. Lookup by ID would be an optional
feature for virtio, but probably a useful one - I won't ask you
to add it to virtio but it could be a mode in failover
that virtio will activate down the road. And reducing the number of
times we look cards up based on ID can only be a good thing.

-- 
MST

On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 11:35 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 10:06:35PM -0400, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 May 2018 09:55:14 -0700
>> Sridhar Samudrala <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>
>>
>> Why was this merged? It was never signed off by any of the netvsc
maintainers,
>> and there were still issues unresolved.
>>
>> There are also namespaces issues I am fixing and this breaks them.
>> Will start my patch set with a revert for this. Sorry
>
> As long as you finish the patch set with re-integrating with failover,
> that's fine IMHO.
>
> I suspect it's easier to add the code to failover though - namespace
> things likely affect virtio as well. Lookup by ID would be an optional
> feature for virtio, but probably a useful one - I won't ask you
I would think for production uses this is a required feature and
should be enabled by default.

Venu (cc'ed) is working on the group ID stuff currently for pairing
virtio and passthrough devices. Would appreciate feedback on the group
ID proposal on virtio-dev.

-Siwei
> to add it to virtio but it could be a mode in failover
> that virtio will activate down the road. And reducing the number of
> times we look cards up based on ID can only be a good thing.
>
> --
> MST