From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@wp.pl>
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 15:31:56 -0800
Message-ID: <20190228153156.418525fc__895.675439254262$1551397525$gmane$org@cakuba.netronome.com>
References: <20190227184601-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
	<a617ce13-4114-469d-ef33-a1c91150eeca@oracle.com>
	<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>
	<20190228151349-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20190228151349-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/virtualization>,
	<mailto:virtualization-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/virtualization/>
List-Post: <mailto:virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:virtualization-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization>,
	<mailto:virtualization-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org
Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Cc: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@intel.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>, "Samudrala,
	Sridhar" <sridhar.samudrala@intel.com>, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, Siwei Liu <loseweigh@gmail.com>, liran.alon@oracle.com, Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, si-wei liu <si-wei.liu@oracle.com>, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org

On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 15:14:55 -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> 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?

Not 100%, I'm personally not convinced that renaming primary in the
kernel is okay.