On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:08:53AM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: > Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:06:37AM CEST, j...@resnulli.us wrote: > >Tue, May 22, 2018 at 04:06:18AM CEST, sridhar.samudr...@intel.com wrote: > >>Use the registration/notification framework supported by the generic > >>failover infrastructure. > >> > >>Signed-off-by: Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudr...@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
