On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 09:25:12AM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: > Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 05:42:31AM CEST, step...@networkplumber.org wrote: > >The net failover should be a simple library, not a virtual > >object with function callbacks (see callback hell). > > Why just a library? It should do a common things. I think it should be a > virtual object. Looks like your patch again splits the common > functionality into multiple drivers. That is kind of backwards attitude. > I don't get it. We should rather focus on fixing the mess the > introduction of netvsc-bonding caused and switch netvsc to 3-netdev > model.
So it seems that at least one benefit for netvsc would be better handling of renames. Question is how can this change to 3-netdev happen? Stephen is concerned about risk of breaking some userspace. Stephen, this seems to be the usecase that IFF_HIDDEN was trying to address, and you said then "why not use existing network namespaces rather than inventing a new abstraction". So how about it then? Do you want to find a way to use namespaces to hide the PV device for netvsc compatibility? -- MST
