On 5/7/2018 4:59 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Mon, 7 May 2018 15:10:44 -0700
Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudr...@intel.com> wrote:
+ if (netif_running(failover_dev)) {
+ err = dev_open(slave_dev);
+ if (err && (err != -EBUSY)) {
+ netdev_err(failover_dev, "Opening slave %s failed
err:%d\n",
+ slave_dev->name, err);
+ goto err_dev_open;
+ }
+ }
+
+ netif_addr_lock_bh(failover_dev);
+ dev_uc_sync_multiple(slave_dev, failover_dev);
+ dev_uc_sync_multiple(slave_dev, failover_dev);
+ netif_addr_unlock_bh(failover_dev);
+
The order of these is backwards, you want to sync addresses before bringing up.
Also, doing it this way does not allow udev/systemd the chance to rename VF
devices.
During my testing, i noticed that dev_open() may fail with EBUSY in certain
scenarios,
If so, the opening of the slave is handled after the rename via the
NETDEV_CHANGENAME
event handler.
The complexity of this whole failover mechanism does not make life easier,
more reliable, or safer for netvsc. I though that was the whole reason for
having
common code.
netvsc doesn't go through this code.
if (nfo_ops && nfo_ops->slave_register)
return nfo_ops->slave_register(slave_dev, failover_dev);
So there is no change in event handling for netvsc 2-netdev model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
