Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 12:46:11AM CEST, sridhar.samudr...@intel.com wrote:
>On 4/18/2018 1:32 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> > > > > > > You still use "active"/"backup" names which is highly misleading
>> > > > > > > as
>> > > > > > > it has completely different meaning that in bond for example.
>> > > > > > > I noted that in my previous review already. Please change it.
>> > > > > > I guess the issue is with only the 'active' name. 'backup' should
>> > > > > > be fine as it also
>> > > > > > matches with the BACKUP feature bit we are adding to virtio_net.
>> > > > > I think that "backup" is also misleading. Both "active" and "backup"
>> > > > > mean a *state* of slaves. This should be named differently.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > With regards to alternate names for 'active', you suggested
>> > > > > > 'stolen', but i
>> > > > > > am not too happy with it.
>> > > > > > netvsc uses vf_netdev, are you OK with this? Or another option is
>> > > > > > 'passthru'
>> > > > > No. The netdev could be any netdevice. It does not have to be a "VF".
>> > > > > I think "stolen" is quite appropriate since it describes the modus
>> > > > > operandi. The bypass master steals some netdevice according to some
>> > > > > match.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > But I don't insist on "stolen". Just sounds right.
>> > > > We are adding VIRTIO_NET_F_BACKUP as a new feature bit to enable this
>> > > > feature, So i think
>> > > > 'backup' name is consistent.
>> > > It perhaps makes sense from the view of virtio device. However, as I
>> > > described couple of times, for master/slave device the name "backup" is
>> > > highly misleading.
>> > virtio is the backup. You are supposed to use another
>> > (typically passthrough) device, if that fails use virtio.
>> > It does seem appropriate to me. If you like, we can
>> > change that to "standby". Active I don't like either. "main"?
>> Sounds much better, yes.
>
>OK. Will change backup to 'standby'.
>'main' is fine, what about 'primary'?
Primary is also bonding terminology. But in this case, I think it would
fit. The primary slave is used as the active one whenever the link is
up.
>
>
>>
>>
>> > In fact would failover be better than bypass?
>> Also, much better.
>
>So do we want to change all 'bypass' references to 'failover' including
>the filenames.(net/core/failover.c and include/net/failover.h)
>
><snip>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > > > The intent is to restrict the 'active' netdev to be a VF. If there is
>> > > > a way to check that
>> > > > a PCI device is a VF in the guest kernel, we could restrict 'active'
>> > > > netdev to be a VF.
>> > > >
>> > > > Will look for any suggestions in the next day or two. If i don't get
>> > > > any, i will go
>> > > > with 'stolen'
>> > > >
>> > > > <snip>
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > > +
>> > > > > +static struct net_device *bypass_master_get_bymac(u8 *mac,
>> > > > > + struct bypass_ops
>> > > > > **ops)
>> > > > > +{
>> > > > > + struct bypass_master *bypass_master;
>> > > > > + struct net_device *bypass_netdev;
>> > > > > +
>> > > > > + spin_lock(&bypass_lock);
>> > > > > + list_for_each_entry(bypass_master, &bypass_master_list, list) {
>> > > > > > > As I wrote the last time, you don't need this list, spinlock.
>> > > > > > > You can do just something like:
>> > > > > > > for_each_net(net) {
>> > > > > > > for_each_netdev(net, dev) {
>> > > > > > > if (netif_is_bypass_master(dev)) {
>> > > > > > This function returns the upper netdev as well as the ops
>> > > > > > associated
>> > > > > > with that netdev.
>> > > > > > bypass_master_list is a list of 'struct bypass_master' that
>> > > > > > associates
>> > > > > Well, can't you have it in netdev priv?
>> > > > We cannot do this for 2-netdev model as there is no bypass_netdev
>> > > > created.
>> > > Howcome? You have no master? I don't understand..
>
>For 2-netdev model, the master netdev is not a new one created by the bypass
>module.
>It is created by netvsc internally and passed via bypass_master_register()
But virtio_net alho has to create the master and pass it down to the
bypass module. Howcome it is different?
>
><snip>
>
>
>
>> > >
>> > > > > > > > +
>> > > > > > > > + /* Avoid Bonding master dev with same MAC registering
>> > > > > > > > as slave dev */
>> > > > > > > > + if ((dev->priv_flags & IFF_BONDING) && (dev->flags &
>> > > > > > > > IFF_MASTER))
>> > > > > > > Yeah, this is certainly incorrect. One thing is, you should be
>> > > > > > > using the
>> > > > > > > helpers netif_is_bond_master().
>> > > > > > > But what about the rest? macsec, macvlan, team, bridge, ovs and
>> > > > > > > others?
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > You need to do it not by blacklisting, but with whitelisting.
>> > > > > > > You need
>> > > > > > > to whitelist VF devices. My port flavours patchset might help
>> > > > > > > with this.
>> > > > > > May be i can use netdev_has_lower_dev() helper to make sure that
>> > > > > > the slave
>> > > > > I don't see such function in the code.
>> > > > It is netdev_has_any_lower_dev(). I need to export it.
>> > > Come on, you cannot use that. That would allow bonding without slaves,
>> > > but the slaves could be added later on.
>> > >
>> > > What exactly you are trying to achieve by this?
>
>I think i can remove this check. In pre-register,
>for backup device, i check that its parent matches bypass device &
>for vf device, we make sure that it is a pci device.
Okay. That is a start.
>
>
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
