Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 05:13:40PM CEST, sridhar.samudr...@intel.com wrote:
>On 4/10/2018 3:55 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> 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?
>>
>To be exact, 2 netdev model with netvsc looks like this.
>
> netvsc_netdev
> /
> /
> VF_slave
>
>With virtio_net, 3 netdev model
>
> bypass_netdev
> / \
> / \
>VF_slave virtio_net netdev
Could you also mark the original netdev which is there now? is it
bypass_netdev or virtio_net_netdev ?
