Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 2/4] net: Introduce generic bypass module

[Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>]

Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 06:08:58AM CEST, mst@redhat.com wrote:
>On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 10:32:06PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> >> >> > With regards to alternate names for 'active', you suggested 'stolen', but i
>> >> >> > am not too happy with it.
>> >> >> > netvsc uses vf_netdev, are you OK with this? Or another option is 'passthru'
>> >> >> No. The netdev could be any netdevice. It does not have to be a "VF".
>> >> >> I think "stolen" is quite appropriate since it describes the modus
>> >> >> operandi. The bypass master steals some netdevice according to some
>> >> >> match.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> But I don't insist on "stolen". Just sounds right.
>> >> >
>> >> >We are adding VIRTIO_NET_F_BACKUP as a new feature bit to enable this feature, So i think
>> >> >'backup' name is consistent.
>> >> 
>> >> It perhaps makes sense from the view of virtio device. However, as I
>> >> described couple of times, for master/slave device the name "backup" is
>> >> highly misleading.
>> >
>> >virtio is the backup. You are supposed to use another
>> >(typically passthrough) device, if that fails use virtio.
>> >It does seem appropriate to me. If you like, we can
>> >change that to "standby".  Active I don't like either. "main"?
>> 
>> Sounds much better, yes.
>
>Excuse me, which of the versions are better in your eyes?

standby is okay. main/primary is fine too.

>
>
>> 
>> >
>> >In fact would failover be better than bypass?
>> 
>> Also, much better.
>>