Tue, May 22, 2018 at 03:17:37PM CEST, m...@redhat.com wrote: >On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 03:14:22PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> Tue, May 22, 2018 at 03:12:40PM CEST, m...@redhat.com wrote: >> >On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:08:53AM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> >> Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:06:37AM CEST, j...@resnulli.us wrote: >> >> >Tue, May 22, 2018 at 04:06:18AM CEST, sridhar.samudr...@intel.com wrote: >> >> >>Use the registration/notification framework supported by the generic >> >> >>failover infrastructure. >> >> >> >> >> >>Signed-off-by: Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudr...@intel.com> >> >> > >> >> >In previous patchset versions, the common code did >> >> >netdev_rx_handler_register() and netdev_upper_dev_link() etc >> >> >(netvsc_vf_join()). Now, this is still done in netvsc. Why? >> >> > >> >> >This should be part of the common "failover" code. >> >> > >> >> >> >> Also note that in the current patchset you use IFF_FAILOVER flag for >> >> master, yet for the slave you use IFF_SLAVE. That is wrong. >> >> IFF_FAILOVER_SLAVE should be used. >> > >> >Or drop IFF_FAILOVER_SLAVE and set both IFF_FAILOVER and IFF_SLAVE? >> >> No. IFF_SLAVE is for bonding. > >What breaks if we reuse it for failover?
This is exposed to userspace. IFF_SLAVE is expected for bonding slaves. And failover slave is not a bonding slave.
