On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez
wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 5:02 AM, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
>>> Agreed that's the best strategy and I'll work on sending patches to
>>> brctl to enable the root_block preference. This approach however also
>>
>> I don't think brctl should deal w
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 5:02 AM, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
>> Agreed that's the best strategy and I'll work on sending patches to
>> brctl to enable the root_block preference. This approach however also
>
> I don't think brctl should deal with any Xen specific stuff. I assume there
> is a misunderstandin
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 5:02 AM, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
> On 20/02/14 20:01, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 5:19 AM, Zoltan Kiss
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> How about this: netback sets the root_block flag and a random MAC by
>>> default. So the default behaviour won't change, DAD will
On 20/02/14 20:01, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 5:19 AM, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
How about this: netback sets the root_block flag and a random MAC by
default. So the default behaviour won't change, DAD will be happy, and
userspace don't have to do anything unless it's using netba
On 20/02/14 20:24, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Stephen Hemminger
wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:59:33 -0800 "Luis R. Rodriguez"
wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Stephen Hemminger
wrote:
Please only use the netlink/sysfs flags fields that already exist
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 6:47 AM, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
> On 19/02/14 16:45, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>
>> You seem to describe a case whereby it can make sense for xen-netback
>> interfaces to end up becoming the root port of a bridge. Can you
>> elaborate a little more on that as it was unclear the
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Stephen Hemminger
wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:59:33 -0800 "Luis R. Rodriguez"
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Stephen Hemminger
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Please only use the netlink/sysfs flags fields that already exist
>> > for new features.
>>
>> S
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 5:19 AM, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
> How about this: netback sets the root_block flag and a random MAC by
> default. So the default behaviour won't change, DAD will be happy, and
> userspace don't have to do anything unless it's using netback for STP root
> bridge (I don't think t
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:59:33 -0800
"Luis R. Rodriguez" wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Stephen Hemminger
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:02:06 -0800
> > "Luis R. Rodriguez" wrote:
> >
> >> Folks, what if I repurpose my patch to use the IFF_BRIDGE_NON_ROOT (or
> >> relabel to IFF_R
On 19/02/14 16:45, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
On 15/02/14 02:59, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez"
It doesn't make sense for some interfaces to become a root bridge
at any point in time. One example is virtual backend interf
On 19/02/14 17:02, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 6:35 AM, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
On 19/02/14 09:52, Ian Campbell wrote:
Can't we arrange things in the Xen hotplug scripts such that if the
root_block stuff isn't available/doesn't work we fallback to the
existing fe:ff:ff:ff:ff us
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Stephen Hemminger
wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:02:06 -0800
> "Luis R. Rodriguez" wrote:
>
>> Folks, what if I repurpose my patch to use the IFF_BRIDGE_NON_ROOT (or
>> relabel to IFF_ROOT_BLOCK_DEF) flag for a default driver preference
>> upon initialization so
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:02:06 -0800
"Luis R. Rodriguez" wrote:
> Folks, what if I repurpose my patch to use the IFF_BRIDGE_NON_ROOT (or
> relabel to IFF_ROOT_BLOCK_DEF) flag for a default driver preference
> upon initialization so that root block will be used once the device
> gets added to a brid
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 6:35 AM, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
> On 19/02/14 09:52, Ian Campbell wrote:
>> Can't we arrange things in the Xen hotplug scripts such that if the
>> root_block stuff isn't available/doesn't work we fallback to the
>> existing fe:ff:ff:ff:ff usage?
>>
>> That would avoid concerns
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
> On 15/02/14 02:59, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>
>> From: "Luis R. Rodriguez"
>>
>> It doesn't make sense for some interfaces to become a root bridge
>> at any point in time. One example is virtual backend interfaces
>> which rely on other entit
On 19/02/14 09:52, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Tue, 2014-02-18 at 13:02 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Stephen Hemminger
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 18:59:37 -0800
"Luis R. Rodriguez" wrote:
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez"
It doesn't make sense for some interfaces t
On Tue, 2014-02-18 at 13:02 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Stephen Hemminger
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 18:59:37 -0800
> > "Luis R. Rodriguez" wrote:
> >
> >> From: "Luis R. Rodriguez"
> >>
> >> It doesn't make sense for some interfaces to become a root
On 15/02/14 02:59, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez"
It doesn't make sense for some interfaces to become a root bridge
at any point in time. One example is virtual backend interfaces
which rely on other entities on the bridge for actual physical
connectivity. They only provide
18 matches
Mail list logo
