On Fri, 25 May 2018 16:06:58 -0700
"Samudrala, Sridhar" <sridhar.samudr...@intel.com> wrote:
> On 5/25/2018 3:38 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 May 2018 09:55:13 -0700
> > Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudr...@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> >> diff --git a/include/linux/netdevice.h b/include/linux/netdevice.h
> >> index 03ed492c4e14..0f4ba52b641d 100644
> >> --- a/include/linux/netdevice.h
> >> +++ b/include/linux/netdevice.h
> >> @@ -1421,6 +1421,8 @@ struct net_device_ops {
> >> * entity (i.e. the master device for bridged veth)
> >> * @IFF_MACSEC: device is a MACsec device
> >> * @IFF_NO_RX_HANDLER: device doesn't support the rx_handler hook
> >> + * @IFF_FAILOVER: device is a failover master device
> >> + * @IFF_FAILOVER_SLAVE: device is lower dev of a failover master device
> >> */
> >> enum netdev_priv_flags {
> >> IFF_802_1Q_VLAN = 1<<0,
> >> @@ -1450,6 +1452,8 @@ enum netdev_priv_flags {
> >> IFF_PHONY_HEADROOM = 1<<24,
> >> IFF_MACSEC = 1<<25,
> >> IFF_NO_RX_HANDLER = 1<<26,
> >> + IFF_FAILOVER = 1<<27,
> >> + IFF_FAILOVER_SLAVE = 1<<28,
> >> };
> > Why is FAILOVER any different than other master/slave relationships.
> > I don't think you need to take up precious netdev flag bits for this.
>
> These are netdev priv flags.
> Jiri says that IFF_MASTER/IFF_SLAVE are bonding specific flags and cannot be
> used
> with other failover mechanisms. Team also doesn't use this flags and it has
> its own
> priv_flags.
>
This change breaks userspace.
We already have worked with partners to ignore devices marked as IFF_SLAVE,
and IFF_SLAVE is visible to user space API's.
NAK
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
