On Wed, 6 Jun 2018 15:19:30 +0300 "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 08:51:18PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > > I think the push back was with the usage of the delay, not bringing up > > > the primary/standby > > > device in the name change event handler. > > > Can't netvsc use this mechanism instead of depending on the delay? > > > > > > > > > > The patch that was rejected for netvsc was about using name change. > > So failover is now doing exactly what you wanted netvsc to do. Rather > than reverting everyone to old behaviour how about using more pieces > from failover? > > > Also, you can't depend on name change; you still need a timer. Not all > > distributions > > change name of devices. > > So failover chose not to implement the delayed open so far. > If it does I suspect we'll have to keep it around forever - > kind of like netvsc seems to be stuck with it. > But let's see if there's enough actual demand from people running > ancient distros with latest kernels to even start looking for > a solution for failover. > > And this kind of behaviour change really should be split out > so we can discuss it separately. > > > Or user has blocked that by udev rules. > > Don't do that then? > If you don't want to allow udev to rename the device, then just pull the name change hook.
