> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg KH [mailto:gre...@linuxfoundation.org]
> > > >
> > > > IMO the most feasible and need-the-least-change solution may be:
> > > > the hyperv network VSC driver passes the event
> > > > RNDIS_STATUS_NETWORK_CHANGE to the udev daemon?
> > > >
> > > No, don't do that, again, act like any other network device, drop the
> > > link and bring it up when it comes back.
> > >
> > Hi Greg,
> > Do you mean tearing down the net device and re-creating it (by
> > register_netdev() and unregister_netdev)?
>
> No, don't you have link-detect for your network device? Toggle that, I
> thought patches to do this were posted a while ago...
>
> But if you really want to tear the whole network device down and then
> back up again, sure, that would also work.
Hi Greg, Stephen,
Thanks for the comments!
I suppose you meant the below logic:
if (refresh) {
rtnl_lock();
netif_carrier_off(net);
netif_carrier_on(net);
rtnl_unlock();
}
We have discussed this in the previous mails of this thread itself:
e.g., http://marc.info/?l=linux-driver-devel&m=140593811715975&w=2
Unluckily this logic doesn't work because the user-space daemons
like ifplugd, usually don't renew the DHCP immediately as long as they
receive a link-down message: they usually wait for some seconds and if
they find the link becomes up soon, they won't trigger renew operations.
(I guess this behavior can be somewhat reasonable: maybe the daemons
try to not trigger DHCP renew on temporary link instability)
If we use this logic in the kernel space, we'll have to "fix" the user-space
daemons, like ifplugd, systemd-networkd...,etc.
I'm not sure our attempt to "fix" the daemons can be easily accepted.
BTW, by CPUID, an application has a reliable way to determine if it's
running on hyper-v on not. Maybe we can "fix" the behavior of the
daemons when they run on hyper-v?
BTW2, according to my limited experience, I doubt other VMMs can
handle this auto-DHCP-renew-in-guest issue properly.
That was why Yue's patch wanted to add a SLEEP(10s) between the
link-down and link-up events and hoped this could be an acceptable
fix(while it turned out not, obviously), though we admit it's not so good
to add such a magic number "10s" in a kernel driver.
Please point it out if I missed or misunderstand something.
Now I understand it's not good to pass the event to the udev daemon,
and it's not good to use a SLEEP(10s) in the kernel space(even if it's in a
"work" task here).
Please let me know if it's the correct direction to fix the user-space
daemons (ifplugd, systemd-networkd, etc).
If you think this is viable and we should do this, I'll submit a
netif_carrier_off/on patch first and will start to work with the
projects of ifplugd, systemd-networkd and many OSVs to make the
while thing work eventually.
Thanks,
-- Dexuan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
