Tue, May 22, 2018 at 05:28:42PM CEST, sridhar.samudr...@intel.com wrote: > >On 5/22/2018 2:08 AM, 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. > >Based on Stephen's feedback on earlier patches, i tried to minimize the >changes to >netvsc and only commonize the notifier and the main event handler routine. >Another complication is that netvsc does part of registration in a delayed >workqueue.
:( This kind of degrades the whole efford of having single solution in "failover" module. I think that common parts, as netdev_rx_handler_register() and others certainly is should be inside the common module. This is not a good time to minimize changes. Let's do the thing properly and fix the netvsc mess now. > >It should be possible to move some of the code from net_failover.c to generic >failover.c in future if Stephen is ok with it. > > >> > >> 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. > >Not sure which code you are referring to. I only set IFF_FAILOVER_SLAVE >in patch 3. The existing netvsc driver.
