Patrick McHardy wrote: > Pavel Emelianov wrote: >> Patrick McHardy wrote: >> >>> No, to get unique names the sequence has to be: >>> >>> dev_alloc_name >>> register_netdevice >>> dev_alloc_name >>> register_netdevice >>> >>> But you have: >>> >>> dev_alloc_name >>> dev_alloc_name (<- might allocate same name as first call) >>> register_netdevice >>> register_netdevice >> >> Oops :) You're right. That's the problem. I was carried away by >> testing the "peer" options and checking for names rather than >> "veth%d" to work... >> >> By the way, that will create some problems. You see, your patches >> imply that the register_netdevice() will be called at the very end >> of the ->newlink callback. Otherwise, the error path of any code >> following the registering will have to call unregister_netdevice() >> which will BUG() in free_netdev() in rtnl_newlink() - the device >> state will be neither UNINITIALIZED nor UNREGISTERED :( > > > Thats true. I think you could do: > > - use name of the supplied device for the second device > - register second device > - allocate new name for first device > - register first device >
Not 100% like this (since the first name is expected to be associated with the device with the first address), but reallocating the name for the first device sounds like a good idea. David, which way would be more preferable - to fix booth issues pointed by Patric and send the v.4 patch, or to wait for this patch to be committed and then send two incremental fixes? Pavel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html