On 5/30/2018 7:52 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Fri, 25 May 2018 16:06:58 -0700
"Samudrala, Sridhar" <sridhar.samudr...@intel.com> wrote:
On 5/25/2018 3:38 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2018 09:55:13 -0700
Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudr...@intel.com> wrote:
diff --git a/include/linux/netdevice.h b/include/linux/netdevice.h
index 03ed492c4e14..0f4ba52b641d 100644
--- a/include/linux/netdevice.h
+++ b/include/linux/netdevice.h
@@ -1421,6 +1421,8 @@ struct net_device_ops {
* entity (i.e. the master device for bridged veth)
* @IFF_MACSEC: device is a MACsec device
* @IFF_NO_RX_HANDLER: device doesn't support the rx_handler hook
+ * @IFF_FAILOVER: device is a failover master device
+ * @IFF_FAILOVER_SLAVE: device is lower dev of a failover master device
*/
enum netdev_priv_flags {
IFF_802_1Q_VLAN = 1<<0,
@@ -1450,6 +1452,8 @@ enum netdev_priv_flags {
IFF_PHONY_HEADROOM = 1<<24,
IFF_MACSEC = 1<<25,
IFF_NO_RX_HANDLER = 1<<26,
+ IFF_FAILOVER = 1<<27,
+ IFF_FAILOVER_SLAVE = 1<<28,
};
Why is FAILOVER any different than other master/slave relationships.
I don't think you need to take up precious netdev flag bits for this.
These are netdev priv flags.
Jiri says that IFF_MASTER/IFF_SLAVE are bonding specific flags and cannot be
used
with other failover mechanisms. Team also doesn't use this flags and it has its
own
priv_flags.
This change breaks userspace.
We already have worked with partners to ignore devices marked as IFF_SLAVE,
and IFF_SLAVE is visible to user space API's.
I specifically made sure not to remove IFF_SLAVE in the netvsc patch.
NAK
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
