Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 08:47:06PM CEST, sridhar.samudr...@intel.com wrote:
>On 4/9/2018 1:07 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Sat, Apr 07, 2018 at 12:59:14AM CEST, sridhar.samudr...@intel.com wrote:
>> > On 4/6/2018 5:48 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> > > Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 11:08:22PM CEST, sridhar.samudr...@intel.com wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> > > > +static int virtnet_bypass_join_child(struct net_device *bypass_netdev,
>> > > > + struct net_device *child_netdev)
>> > > > +{
>> > > > + struct virtnet_bypass_info *vbi;
>> > > > + bool backup;
>> > > > +
>> > > > + vbi = netdev_priv(bypass_netdev);
>> > > > + backup = (child_netdev->dev.parent ==
>> > > > bypass_netdev->dev.parent);
>> > > > + if (backup ? rtnl_dereference(vbi->backup_netdev) :
>> > > > + rtnl_dereference(vbi->active_netdev)) {
>> > > > + netdev_info(bypass_netdev,
>> > > > + "%s attempting to join bypass dev when %s
>> > > > already present\n",
>> > > > + child_netdev->name, backup ? "backup" :
>> > > > "active");
>> > > Bypass module should check if there is already some other netdev
>> > > enslaved and refuse right there.
>> > This will work for virtio-net with 3 netdev model, but this check has to
>> > be done by netvsc
>> > as its bypass_netdev is same as the backup_netdev.
>> > Will add a flag while registering with the bypass module to indicate if
>> > the driver is doing
>> > a 2 netdev or 3 netdev model and based on that flag this check can be done
>> > in bypass module
>> > for 3 netdev scenario.
>> Just let me undestand it clearly. What I expect the difference would be
>> between 2netdev and3 netdev model is this:
>> 2netdev:
>> bypass_master
>> /
>> /
>> VF_slave
>>
>> 3netdev:
>> bypass_master
>> / \
>> / \
>> VF_slave backup_slave
>>
>> Is that correct? If not, how does it look like?
>>
>>
>Looks correct.
>VF_slave and backup_slave are the original netdevs and are present in both the
>models.
>In the 3 netdev model, bypass_master netdev is created and VF_slave and
>backup_slave are
>marked as the 2 slaves of this new netdev.
You say it looks correct and in another sentence you provide completely
different description. Could you please look again?
[...]
