Re: [virtio-dev] Re: net_failover slave udev renaming (was Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 4/4] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling code to use the bypass framework)

2019-04-19 Thread Liran Alon
> On 28 Feb 2019, at 1:50, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 03:34:56PM -0800, si-wei liu wrote: >> >> >> On 2/27/2019 2:38 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 04:17:21PM -0800, si-wei liu wrote: On 2/25/2019 6:08 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin

Re: [virtio-dev] Re: net_failover slave udev renaming (was Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 4/4] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling code to use the bypass framework)

2019-03-01 Thread Siwei Liu
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 5:05 PM Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 16:20:28 -0800, Siwei Liu wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 11:56 AM Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 14:36:56 -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > It is a bit of a the chicken or the egg situation

Re: [virtio-dev] Re: net_failover slave udev renaming (was Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 4/4] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling code to use the bypass framework)

2019-03-01 Thread Michael S. Tsirkin
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 05:30:56PM -0800, si-wei liu wrote: > > > On 2/28/2019 6:26 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 01:32:12AM -0800, si-wei liu wrote: > > > > > Will the > > > > > change break userspace further? > > > > > > > > > > -Siwei > > > > Didn't you show

Re: [virtio-dev] Re: net_failover slave udev renaming (was Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 4/4] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling code to use the bypass framework)

2019-02-28 Thread Jakub Kicinski
On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 16:20:28 -0800, Siwei Liu wrote: > On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 11:56 AM Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 14:36:56 -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > It is a bit of a the chicken or the egg situation ;) But users can > > > > just blacklist, too. Anyway, I

Re: [virtio-dev] Re: net_failover slave udev renaming (was Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 4/4] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling code to use the bypass framework)

2019-02-28 Thread Siwei Liu
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 11:56 AM Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 14:36:56 -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > It is a bit of a the chicken or the egg situation ;) But users can > > > just blacklist, too. Anyway, I think this is far better than module > > > parameters > > > >

Re: [virtio-dev] Re: net_failover slave udev renaming (was Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 4/4] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling code to use the bypass framework)

2019-02-28 Thread Jakub Kicinski
On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 15:14:55 -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 11:56:41AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 14:36:56 -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > It is a bit of a the chicken or the egg situation ;) But users can > > > > just blacklist,

Re: [virtio-dev] Re: net_failover slave udev renaming (was Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 4/4] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling code to use the bypass framework)

2019-02-28 Thread Michael S. Tsirkin
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 11:56:41AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 14:36:56 -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > It is a bit of a the chicken or the egg situation ;) But users can > > > just blacklist, too. Anyway, I think this is far better than module > > > parameters >

Re: [virtio-dev] Re: net_failover slave udev renaming (was Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 4/4] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling code to use the bypass framework)

2019-02-28 Thread Jakub Kicinski
On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 14:36:56 -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > It is a bit of a the chicken or the egg situation ;) But users can > > just blacklist, too. Anyway, I think this is far better than module > > parameters > > Sorry I'm a bit confused. What is better than what? I mean that

Re: [virtio-dev] Re: net_failover slave udev renaming (was Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 4/4] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling code to use the bypass framework)

2019-02-28 Thread Michael S. Tsirkin
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:13:56AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 23:47:33 -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 05:52:18PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > > > Can the users who care about the naming put net_failover into > > > > > "user space will do

Re: [virtio-dev] Re: net_failover slave udev renaming (was Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 4/4] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling code to use the bypass framework)

2019-02-28 Thread Jakub Kicinski
On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 23:47:33 -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 05:52:18PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > > Can the users who care about the naming put net_failover into > > > > "user space will do the bond enslavement" mode, and do the bond > > > > creation/management

Re: [virtio-dev] Re: net_failover slave udev renaming (was Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 4/4] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling code to use the bypass framework)

2019-02-28 Thread Michael S. Tsirkin
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 01:32:12AM -0800, si-wei liu wrote: > > > Will the > > > change break userspace further? > > > > > > -Siwei > > Didn't you show userspace is already broken. You can't "further > > break it", rename already fails. > It's a race, userspace tends to give slave a user(space)

Re: [virtio-dev] Re: net_failover slave udev renaming (was Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 4/4] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling code to use the bypass framework)

2019-02-27 Thread Jakub Kicinski
On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 20:26:02 -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 04:52:05PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 19:41:32 -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > As this scheme adds much complexity to the kernel naming convention > > > > (currently it's

Re: [virtio-dev] Re: net_failover slave udev renaming (was Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 4/4] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling code to use the bypass framework)

2019-02-27 Thread Jakub Kicinski
On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 19:41:32 -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > As this scheme adds much complexity to the kernel naming convention > > (currently it's just ethX names) that no userspace can understand. > > Anything that pokes at slaves needs to be specially designed anyway. > Naming seems

Re: [virtio-dev] Re: net_failover slave udev renaming (was Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 4/4] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling code to use the bypass framework)

2019-02-27 Thread Michael S. Tsirkin
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 04:38:00PM -0800, si-wei liu wrote: > > > On 2/27/2019 3:50 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 03:34:56PM -0800, si-wei liu wrote: > > > > > > On 2/27/2019 2:38 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 04:17:21PM -0800, si-wei

Re: [virtio-dev] Re: net_failover slave udev renaming (was Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 4/4] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling code to use the bypass framework)

2019-02-27 Thread Michael S. Tsirkin
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 04:03:42PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > With this approach kernel will deny attempts by userspace to rename > > slaves. Slaves will always be named XXXnsby and XXnpry. Master renames > > will rename both slaves. > > > > It seems pretty solid to me, the only issue

Re: [virtio-dev] Re: net_failover slave udev renaming (was Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 4/4] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling code to use the bypass framework)

2019-02-27 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 18:50:44 -0500 "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote: > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 03:34:56PM -0800, si-wei liu wrote: > > > > > > On 2/27/2019 2:38 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 04:17:21PM -0800, si-wei liu wrote: > > > > > > > > On 2/25/2019 6:08 PM,

Re: [virtio-dev] Re: net_failover slave udev renaming (was Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 4/4] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling code to use the bypass framework)

2019-02-27 Thread Michael S. Tsirkin
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 03:34:56PM -0800, si-wei liu wrote: > > > On 2/27/2019 2:38 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 04:17:21PM -0800, si-wei liu wrote: > > > > > > On 2/25/2019 6:08 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 04:58:07PM -0800, si-wei

Re: [virtio-dev] Re: net_failover slave udev renaming (was Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 4/4] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling code to use the bypass framework)

2019-02-27 Thread Michael S. Tsirkin
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 04:17:21PM -0800, si-wei liu wrote: > > > On 2/25/2019 6:08 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 04:58:07PM -0800, si-wei liu wrote: > > > > > > On 2/22/2019 7:14 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 11:55:11PM -0800, si-wei

Re: [virtio-dev] Re: net_failover slave udev renaming (was Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 4/4] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling code to use the bypass framework)

2019-02-27 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 16:17:21 -0800 si-wei liu wrote: > On 2/25/2019 6:08 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 04:58:07PM -0800, si-wei liu wrote: > >> > >> On 2/22/2019 7:14 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 11:55:11PM -0800, si-wei liu wrote:

Re: [virtio-dev] Re: net_failover slave udev renaming (was Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 4/4] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling code to use the bypass framework)

2019-02-25 Thread Michael S. Tsirkin
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 04:58:07PM -0800, si-wei liu wrote: > > > On 2/22/2019 7:14 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 11:55:11PM -0800, si-wei liu wrote: > > > > > > On 2/21/2019 11:00 PM, Samudrala, Sridhar wrote: > > > > > > > > On 2/21/2019 7:33 PM, si-wei liu wrote:

Re: [virtio-dev] Re: net_failover slave udev renaming (was Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 4/4] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling code to use the bypass framework)

2019-02-25 Thread Michael S. Tsirkin
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 05:39:12PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > >>> Moreover, you were suggesting hiding the lower slave devices anyway. > > >>> There was some discussion > > >>> about moving them to a hidden network namespace so that they are not > > >>> visible from the default

Re: [virtio-dev] Re: net_failover slave udev renaming (was Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 4/4] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling code to use the bypass framework)

2019-02-25 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 16:58:07 -0800 si-wei liu wrote: > On 2/22/2019 7:14 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 11:55:11PM -0800, si-wei liu wrote: > >> > >> On 2/21/2019 11:00 PM, Samudrala, Sridhar wrote: > >>> > >>> On 2/21/2019 7:33 PM, si-wei liu wrote: > >

Re: [virtio-dev] Re: net_failover slave udev renaming (was Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 4/4] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling code to use the bypass framework)

2019-02-22 Thread Michael S. Tsirkin
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 11:55:11PM -0800, si-wei liu wrote: > > > On 2/21/2019 11:00 PM, Samudrala, Sridhar wrote: > > > > > > On 2/21/2019 7:33 PM, si-wei liu wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 2/21/2019 5:39 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 05:14:44PM -0800, Siwei Liu

Re: [virtio-dev] Re: net_failover slave udev renaming (was Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 4/4] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling code to use the bypass framework)

2019-02-21 Thread Samudrala, Sridhar
On 2/21/2019 7:33 PM, si-wei liu wrote: On 2/21/2019 5:39 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 05:14:44PM -0800, Siwei Liu wrote: Sorry for replying to this ancient thread. There was some remaining issue that I don't think the initial net_failover patch got addressed

net_failover slave udev renaming (was Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 4/4] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling code to use the bypass framework)

2019-02-21 Thread Siwei Liu
Sorry for replying to this ancient thread. There was some remaining issue that I don't think the initial net_failover patch got addressed cleanly, see: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1815268 The renaming of 'eth0' to 'ens4' fails because the udev userspace was not

Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 4/4] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling code to use the bypass framework

2018-04-11 Thread Jiri Pirko
Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:26:08PM CEST, step...@networkplumber.org wrote: >On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 11:59:50 -0700 >Sridhar Samudrala wrote: > >> Use the registration/notification framework supported by the generic >> bypass infrastructure. >> >> Signed-off-by: Sridhar

Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 4/4] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling code to use the bypass framework

2018-04-11 Thread Jiri Pirko
Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 01:28:51AM CEST, m...@redhat.com wrote: >On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 02:26:08PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: >> On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 11:59:50 -0700 >> Sridhar Samudrala wrote: >> >> > Use the registration/notification framework supported by the

Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 4/4] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling code to use the bypass framework

2018-04-10 Thread Michael S. Tsirkin
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 02:26:08PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 11:59:50 -0700 > Sridhar Samudrala wrote: > > > Use the registration/notification framework supported by the generic > > bypass infrastructure. > > > > Signed-off-by: Sridhar

Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 4/4] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling code to use the bypass framework

2018-04-10 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 16:44:47 -0700 Siwei Liu wrote: > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:28 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 02:26:08PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > >> On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 11:59:50 -0700 > >> Sridhar Samudrala

Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 4/4] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling code to use the bypass framework

2018-04-10 Thread Siwei Liu
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:28 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 02:26:08PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: >> On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 11:59:50 -0700 >> Sridhar Samudrala wrote: >> >> > Use the registration/notification framework

Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 4/4] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling code to use the bypass framework

2018-04-10 Thread Michael S. Tsirkin
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 02:26:08PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 11:59:50 -0700 > Sridhar Samudrala wrote: > > > Use the registration/notification framework supported by the generic > > bypass infrastructure. > > > > Signed-off-by: Sridhar

Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 4/4] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling code to use the bypass framework

2018-04-10 Thread Samudrala, Sridhar
On 4/10/2018 2:26 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 11:59:50 -0700 Sridhar Samudrala wrote: Use the registration/notification framework supported by the generic bypass infrastructure. Signed-off-by: Sridhar Samudrala

Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 4/4] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling code to use the bypass framework

2018-04-10 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 11:59:50 -0700 Sridhar Samudrala wrote: > Use the registration/notification framework supported by the generic > bypass infrastructure. > > Signed-off-by: Sridhar Samudrala > --- Thanks for doing this. Your current

[RFC PATCH net-next v6 4/4] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling code to use the bypass framework

2018-04-10 Thread Sridhar Samudrala
Use the registration/notification framework supported by the generic bypass infrastructure. Signed-off-by: Sridhar Samudrala --- drivers/net/hyperv/Kconfig | 1 + drivers/net/hyperv/hyperv_net.h | 2 + drivers/net/hyperv/netvsc_drv.c | 208