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.
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.
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
