From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] Re: net_failover slave udev renaming (was Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 4/4] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling code to use the bypass framework) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 15:14:55 -0500 Message-ID: <20190228151349-mutt-send-email-mst__39842.0929255494$1551385405$gmane$org@kernel.org> References: <20190227184601-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20190227193923-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20190227165205.307ed83c@cakuba.netronome.com> <20190227201857-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20190227175218.736e13b6@cakuba.netronome.com> <20190227233812-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20190228101356.39ac70aa@cakuba.netronome.com> <20190228143511-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20190228115641.7afe6f09@cakuba.netronome.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190228115641.7afe6f09@cakuba.netronome.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Jakub Kicinski Cc: Alexander Duyck , Jiri Pirko , "Samudrala, Sridhar" , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, Siwei Liu , liran.alon@oracle.com, Netdev , si-wei liu , David Miller List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 11:56:41AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 14:36:56 -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > It is a bit of a the chicken or the egg situation ;) But users can > > > just blacklist, too. Anyway, I think this is far better than module > > > parameters > > > > Sorry I'm a bit confused. What is better than what? > > I mean that blacklist net_failover or module param to disable > net_failover and handle in user space are better than trying to solve > the renaming at kernel level (either by adding module params that make > the kernel rename devices or letting user space change names of running > devices if they are slaves). > > > > for twiddling kernel-based interface naming policy.. :S > > > > I see your point. But my point is slave names don't really matter, only > > master name matters. So I am not sure there's any policy worth talking > > about here. > > Oh yes, I don't disagree with you, but others seems to want to rename > the auto-bonded lower devices. Which can be done trivially if it was > a daemon in user space instantiating the auto-bond. We are just > providing a basic version of auto-bonding in the kernel. If there are > extra requirements on policy, or naming - the whole thing is better > solved in user space. OK so it seems that you would be happy with a combination of the module parameter disabling failover completely and renaming primary in kernel? Did I get it right? -- MST