On 9/27/24 22:54, Haiyang Zhang wrote:
The existing code moves VF to the same namespace as the synthetic device
during netvsc_register_vf(). But, if the synthetic device is moved to a
new namespace after the VF registration, the VF won't be moved together.
To make the behavior more consistent, add a namespace check to netvsc_open(),
and move the VF if it is not in the same namespace.
Cc: [email protected]
Fixes: c0a41b887ce6 ("hv_netvsc: move VF to same namespace as netvsc device")
Signed-off-by: Haiyang Zhang <[email protected]>
This looks strange to me. Skimming over the code it looks like that with
VF you really don't mean a Virtual Function...
Looking at the blamed commit, it looks like that having both the
synthetic and the "VF" device in different namespaces is an intended
use-case. This change would make such scenario more difficult and could
possibly break existing use-cases.
Why do you think it will be more consistent? If the user moved the
synthetic device in another netns, possibly/likely the user intended to
keep both devices separated.
Thanks,
Paolo
