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, 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 blacklist net_failover or module param to disable > > net_failover and handle in user space are better than trying to solve > > the renaming at kernel level (either by adding module params that make > > the kernel rename devices or letting user space change names of running > > devices if they are slaves). > > > > > > for twiddling kernel-based interface naming policy.. :S > > > > > > I see your point. But my point is slave names don't really matter, only > > > master name matters. So I am not sure there's any policy worth talking > > > about here. > > > > Oh yes, I don't disagree with you, but others seems to want to rename > > the auto-bonded lower devices. Which can be done trivially if it was > > a daemon in user space instantiating the auto-bond. We are just > > providing a basic version of auto-bonding in the kernel. If there are > > extra requirements on policy, or naming - the whole thing is better > > solved in user space. > > OK so it seems that you would be happy with a combination of the module > parameter disabling failover completely and renaming primary in kernel? > Did I get it right?
Not 100%, I'm personally not convinced that renaming primary in the kernel is okay. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
