On 27/04/18 04:31, Hangbin Liu wrote:
Hi Nikolay,
Thanks for the comments.
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 05:22:46PM +0300, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
Not all upper devs are masters. This can break some setups.
Ah, like vlan device.. So how about
+ if (netdev_master_upper_dev_get(dev))
Hi Nikolay,
Thanks for the comments.
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 05:22:46PM +0300, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> > Not all upper devs are masters. This can break some setups.
Ah, like vlan device.. So how about
+ if (netdev_master_upper_dev_get(dev))
return -EBUSY;
> >
> >
>
On 26/04/18 17:00, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> On 26/04/18 16:56, Hangbin Liu wrote:
>> When we set a bond slave's master to bridge via ioctl, we only check
>> the IFF_BRIDGE_PORT flag. Although we will find the slave's real master
>> at netdev_master_upper_dev_link() later, it already does some s
On 26/04/18 16:56, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> When we set a bond slave's master to bridge via ioctl, we only check
> the IFF_BRIDGE_PORT flag. Although we will find the slave's real master
> at netdev_master_upper_dev_link() later, it already does some settings
> and allocates some resources. So it would
When we set a bond slave's master to bridge via ioctl, we only check
the IFF_BRIDGE_PORT flag. Although we will find the slave's real master
at netdev_master_upper_dev_link() later, it already does some settings
and allocates some resources. So it would be better to return as early
as possible.
Re
