From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83252C43381 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 00:17:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31ED1218CD for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 00:17:47 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=oracle.com header.i=@oracle.com header.b="jrlwhdiO" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729035AbfB0ARq (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Feb 2019 19:17:46 -0500 Received: from userp2130.oracle.com ([156.151.31.86]:60782 "EHLO userp2130.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726801AbfB0ARp (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Feb 2019 19:17:45 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (userp2130.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp2130.oracle.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x1R04JCJ037598; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 00:17:32 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=subject : to : references : cc : from : message-id : date : mime-version : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=corp-2018-07-02; bh=Q8JozxXXwAl9/qO1rj6c/ujgcMW2C7aOCjb4Gjudzgs=; b=jrlwhdiO364n8ZPN8dIyL+RQvnDLSZTLmh01NQmtXy2W4O1hwT3obFruiewpeeFKLzmg okc9Ua6sZghpRlA72mBrjMM1W3QpOLPctbub8rzhr+gP7EOdI3GT5K2RGmngSTvdgRPw 08K0t23k/wpyeXc60HV0GtozzQePm5SrgcaI+GG7Hvxx7F2zoyhNTT8JDEWZ0qUO4xOp zF/jUvomtVqOQ1+gIbm/AxNp6b7RlpTWlRZJQTqjK3me5sbFzAYD2B78g/9HSlu2zIZw IJ+MQ9uTXl+RBib8Bv2EUCaBE1VzQON3BV3/6Ka12n4CQnM8dzZO8outNoIlHrs5lOwU jA== Received: from userv0021.oracle.com (userv0021.oracle.com [156.151.31.71]) by userp2130.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2qtwku7w4p-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 27 Feb 2019 00:17:32 +0000 Received: from userv0122.oracle.com (userv0122.oracle.com [156.151.31.75]) by userv0021.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x1R0HREs017350 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 27 Feb 2019 00:17:27 GMT Received: from abhmp0002.oracle.com (abhmp0002.oracle.com [141.146.116.8]) by userv0122.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x1R0HOM1031073; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 00:17:25 GMT Received: from [10.159.231.109] (/10.159.231.109) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 16:17:24 -0800 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) To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" References: <1523386790-12396-5-git-send-email-sridhar.samudrala@intel.com> <20180410142608.50f15b45@xeon-e3> <20180411075334.GK2028@nanopsycho> <20190221203808-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <581e4399-3969-aecd-e923-03bbc0880733@oracle.com> <91d4cbb1-be7a-b53c-6b2a-99bef07e7c53@intel.com> <20190222100753-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20190225210529-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> Cc: "Samudrala, Sridhar" , Siwei Liu , Jiri Pirko , Stephen Hemminger , David Miller , Netdev , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, virtio-dev , "Brandeburg, Jesse" , Alexander Duyck , Jakub Kicinski , Jason Wang , liran.alon@oracle.com From: si-wei liu Organization: Oracle Corporation Message-ID: Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 16:17:21 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190225210529-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=5900 definitions=9179 signatures=668685 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1902260163 Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On 2/25/2019 6:08 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 04:58:07PM -0800, si-wei liu wrote: >> >> On 2/22/2019 7:14 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 11:55:11PM -0800, si-wei liu wrote: >>>> On 2/21/2019 11:00 PM, Samudrala, Sridhar wrote: >>>>> On 2/21/2019 7:33 PM, si-wei liu wrote: >>>>>> On 2/21/2019 5:39 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 05:14:44PM -0800, Siwei Liu wrote: >>>>>>>> Sorry for replying to this ancient thread. There was some remaining >>>>>>>> issue that I don't think the initial net_failover patch got addressed >>>>>>>> cleanly, see: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1815268 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The renaming of 'eth0' to 'ens4' fails because the udev userspace was >>>>>>>> not specifically writtten for such kernel automatic enslavement. >>>>>>>> Specifically, if it is a bond or team, the slave would typically get >>>>>>>> renamed *before* virtual device gets created, that's what udev can >>>>>>>> control (without getting netdev opened early by the other part of >>>>>>>> kernel) and other userspace components for e.g. initramfs, >>>>>>>> init-scripts can coordinate well in between. The in-kernel >>>>>>>> auto-enslavement of net_failover breaks this userspace convention, >>>>>>>> which don't provides a solution if user care about consistent naming >>>>>>>> on the slave netdevs specifically. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Previously this issue had been specifically called out when IFF_HIDDEN >>>>>>>> and the 1-netdev was proposed, but no one gives out a solution to this >>>>>>>> problem ever since. Please share your mind how to proceed and solve >>>>>>>> this userspace issue if netdev does not welcome a 1-netdev model. >>>>>>> Above says: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> there's no motivation in the systemd/udevd community at >>>>>>> this point to refactor the rename logic and make it work well with >>>>>>> 3-netdev. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What would the fix be? Skip slave devices? >>>>>>> >>>>>> There's nothing user can get if just skipping slave devices - the >>>>>> name is still unchanged and unpredictable e.g. eth0, or eth1 the >>>>>> next reboot, while the rest may conform to the naming scheme (ens3 >>>>>> and such). There's no way one can fix this in userspace alone - when >>>>>> the failover is created the enslaved netdev was opened by the kernel >>>>>> earlier than the userspace is made aware of, and there's no >>>>>> negotiation protocol for kernel to know when userspace has done >>>>>> initial renaming of the interface. I would expect netdev list should >>>>>> at least provide the direction in general for how this can be >>>>>> solved... >>> I was just wondering what did you mean when you said >>> "refactor the rename logic and make it work well with 3-netdev" - >>> was there a proposal udev rejected? >> No. I never believed this particular issue can be fixed in userspace alone. >> Previously someone had said it could be, but I never see any work or >> relevant discussion ever happened in various userspace communities (for e.g. >> dracut, initramfs-tools, systemd, udev, and NetworkManager). IMHO the root >> of the issue derives from the kernel, it makes more sense to start from >> netdev, work out and decide on a solution: see what can be done in the >> kernel in order to fix it, then after that engage userspace community for >> the feasibility... >> >>> Anyway, can we write a time diagram for what happens in which order that >>> leads to failure? That would help look for triggers that we can tie >>> into, or add new ones. >>> >> See attached diagram. >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> Is there an issue if slave device names are not predictable? The user/admin scripts are expected >>>>> to only work with the master failover device. >>>> Where does this expectation come from? >>>> >>>> Admin users may have ethtool or tc configurations that need to deal with >>>> predictable interface name. Third-party app which was built upon specifying >>>> certain interface name can't be modified to chase dynamic names. >>>> >>>> Specifically, we have pre-canned image that uses ethtool to fine tune VF >>>> offload settings post boot for specific workload. Those images won't work >>>> well if the name is constantly changing just after couple rounds of live >>>> migration. >>> It should be possible to specify the ethtool configuration on the >>> master and have it automatically propagated to the slave. >>> >>> BTW this is something we should look at IMHO. >> I was elaborating a few examples that the expectation and assumption that >> user/admin scripts only deal with master failover device is incorrect. It >> had never been taken good care of, although I did try to emphasize it from >> the very beginning. >> >> Basically what you said about propagating the ethtool configuration down to >> the slave is the key pursuance of 1-netdev model. However, what I am seeking >> now is any alternative that can also fix the specific udev rename problem, >> before concluding that 1-netdev is the only solution. Generally a 1-netdev >> scheme would take time to implement, while I'm trying to find a way out to >> fix this particular naming problem under 3-netdev. >> >>>>> Moreover, you were suggesting hiding the lower slave devices anyway. There was some discussion >>>>> about moving them to a hidden network namespace so that they are not visible from the default namespace. >>>>> I looked into this sometime back, but did not find the right kernel api to create a network namespace within >>>>> kernel. If so, we could use this mechanism to simulate a 1-netdev model. >>>> Yes, that's one possible implementation (IMHO the key is to make 1-netdev >>>> model as much transparent to a real NIC as possible, while a hidden netns is >>>> just the vehicle). However, I recall there was resistance around this >>>> discussion that even the concept of hiding itself is a taboo for Linux >>>> netdev. I would like to summon potential alternatives before concluding >>>> 1-netdev is the only solution too soon. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> -Siwei >>> Your scripts would not work at all then, right? >> At this point we don't claim images with such usage as SR-IOV live >> migrate-able. We would flag it as live migrate-able until this ethtool >> config issue is fully addressed and a transparent live migration solution >> emerges in upstream eventually. >> >> >> Thanks, >> -Siwei >>> >>>>>> -Siwei >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org >>> >> net_failover(kernel) | network.service (user) | systemd-udevd (user) >> --------------------------------------------------+------------------------------+-------------------------------------------- >> (standby virtio-net and net_failover | | >> devices created and initialized, | | >> i.e. virtnet_probe()-> | | >> net_failover_create() | | >> was done.) | | >> | | >> | runs `ifup ens3' -> | >> | ip link set dev ens3 up | >> net_failover_open() | | >> dev_open(virtnet_dev) | | >> virtnet_open(virtnet_dev) | | >> netif_carrier_on(failover_dev) | | >> ... | | >> | | >> (VF hot plugged in) | | >> ixgbevf_probe() | | >> register_netdev(ixgbevf_netdev) | | >> netdev_register_kobject(ixgbevf_netdev) | | >> kobject_add(ixgbevf_dev) | | >> device_add(ixgbevf_dev) | | >> kobject_uevent(&ixgbevf_dev->kobj, KOBJ_ADD) | | >> netlink_broadcast() | | >> ... | | >> call_netdevice_notifiers(NETDEV_REGISTER) | | >> failover_event(..., NETDEV_REGISTER, ...) | | >> failover_slave_register(ixgbevf_netdev) | | >> net_failover_slave_register(ixgbevf_netdev) | | >> dev_open(ixgbevf_netdev) | | >> | | >> | | >> | | received ADD uevent from netlink fd >> | | ... >> | | udev-builtin-net_id.c:dev_pci_slot() >> | | (decided to renamed 'eth0' ) >> | | ip link set dev eth0 name ens4 >> (dev_change_name() returns -EBUSY as | | >> ixgbevf_netdev->flags has IFF_UP) | | >> | | >> > Given renaming slaves does not work anyway: I was actually thinking what if we relieve the rename restriction just for the failover slave? What the impact would be? I think users don't care about slave being renamed when it's in use, especially the initial rename. Thoughts? > would it work if we just > hard-coded slave names instead? > > E.g. > 1. fail slave renames > 2. rename of failover to XX automatically renames standby to XXnsby > and primary to XXnpry That wouldn't help. The time when the failover master gets renamed, the VF may not be present. I don't like the idea to delay exposing failover master until VF is hot plugged in (probably subject to various failures) later. Thanks, -Siwei > > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: virtio-dev-return-5535-cohuck=redhat.com@lists.oasis-open.org Sender: List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Received: from lists.oasis-open.org (oasis.ws5.connectedcommunity.org [10.110.1.242]) by lists.oasis-open.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C71FB985DCC for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 00:17:39 +0000 (UTC) References: <1523386790-12396-5-git-send-email-sridhar.samudrala@intel.com> <20180410142608.50f15b45@xeon-e3> <20180411075334.GK2028@nanopsycho> <20190221203808-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <581e4399-3969-aecd-e923-03bbc0880733@oracle.com> <91d4cbb1-be7a-b53c-6b2a-99bef07e7c53@intel.com> <20190222100753-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20190225210529-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> From: si-wei liu Message-ID: Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 16:17:21 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190225210529-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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) To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: "Samudrala, Sridhar" , Siwei Liu , Jiri Pirko , Stephen Hemminger , David Miller , Netdev , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, virtio-dev , "Brandeburg, Jesse" , Alexander Duyck , Jakub Kicinski , Jason Wang , liran.alon@oracle.com List-ID: On 2/25/2019 6:08 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 04:58:07PM -0800, si-wei liu wrote: >> >> On 2/22/2019 7:14 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 11:55:11PM -0800, si-wei liu wrote: >>>> On 2/21/2019 11:00 PM, Samudrala, Sridhar wrote: >>>>> On 2/21/2019 7:33 PM, si-wei liu wrote: >>>>>> On 2/21/2019 5:39 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 05:14:44PM -0800, Siwei Liu wrote: >>>>>>>> Sorry for replying to this ancient thread. There was some remaining >>>>>>>> issue that I don't think the initial net_failover patch got addressed >>>>>>>> cleanly, see: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1815268 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The renaming of 'eth0' to 'ens4' fails because the udev userspace was >>>>>>>> not specifically writtten for such kernel automatic enslavement. >>>>>>>> Specifically, if it is a bond or team, the slave would typically get >>>>>>>> renamed *before* virtual device gets created, that's what udev can >>>>>>>> control (without getting netdev opened early by the other part of >>>>>>>> kernel) and other userspace components for e.g. initramfs, >>>>>>>> init-scripts can coordinate well in between. The in-kernel >>>>>>>> auto-enslavement of net_failover breaks this userspace convention, >>>>>>>> which don't provides a solution if user care about consistent naming >>>>>>>> on the slave netdevs specifically. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Previously this issue had been specifically called out when IFF_HIDDEN >>>>>>>> and the 1-netdev was proposed, but no one gives out a solution to this >>>>>>>> problem ever since. Please share your mind how to proceed and solve >>>>>>>> this userspace issue if netdev does not welcome a 1-netdev model. >>>>>>> Above says: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> there's no motivation in the systemd/udevd community at >>>>>>> this point to refactor the rename logic and make it work well with >>>>>>> 3-netdev. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What would the fix be? Skip slave devices? >>>>>>> >>>>>> There's nothing user can get if just skipping slave devices - the >>>>>> name is still unchanged and unpredictable e.g. eth0, or eth1 the >>>>>> next reboot, while the rest may conform to the naming scheme (ens3 >>>>>> and such). There's no way one can fix this in userspace alone - when >>>>>> the failover is created the enslaved netdev was opened by the kernel >>>>>> earlier than the userspace is made aware of, and there's no >>>>>> negotiation protocol for kernel to know when userspace has done >>>>>> initial renaming of the interface. I would expect netdev list should >>>>>> at least provide the direction in general for how this can be >>>>>> solved... >>> I was just wondering what did you mean when you said >>> "refactor the rename logic and make it work well with 3-netdev" - >>> was there a proposal udev rejected? >> No. I never believed this particular issue can be fixed in userspace alone. >> Previously someone had said it could be, but I never see any work or >> relevant discussion ever happened in various userspace communities (for e.g. >> dracut, initramfs-tools, systemd, udev, and NetworkManager). IMHO the root >> of the issue derives from the kernel, it makes more sense to start from >> netdev, work out and decide on a solution: see what can be done in the >> kernel in order to fix it, then after that engage userspace community for >> the feasibility... >> >>> Anyway, can we write a time diagram for what happens in which order that >>> leads to failure? That would help look for triggers that we can tie >>> into, or add new ones. >>> >> See attached diagram. >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> Is there an issue if slave device names are not predictable? The user/admin scripts are expected >>>>> to only work with the master failover device. >>>> Where does this expectation come from? >>>> >>>> Admin users may have ethtool or tc configurations that need to deal with >>>> predictable interface name. Third-party app which was built upon specifying >>>> certain interface name can't be modified to chase dynamic names. >>>> >>>> Specifically, we have pre-canned image that uses ethtool to fine tune VF >>>> offload settings post boot for specific workload. Those images won't work >>>> well if the name is constantly changing just after couple rounds of live >>>> migration. >>> It should be possible to specify the ethtool configuration on the >>> master and have it automatically propagated to the slave. >>> >>> BTW this is something we should look at IMHO. >> I was elaborating a few examples that the expectation and assumption that >> user/admin scripts only deal with master failover device is incorrect. It >> had never been taken good care of, although I did try to emphasize it from >> the very beginning. >> >> Basically what you said about propagating the ethtool configuration down to >> the slave is the key pursuance of 1-netdev model. However, what I am seeking >> now is any alternative that can also fix the specific udev rename problem, >> before concluding that 1-netdev is the only solution. Generally a 1-netdev >> scheme would take time to implement, while I'm trying to find a way out to >> fix this particular naming problem under 3-netdev. >> >>>>> Moreover, you were suggesting hiding the lower slave devices anyway. There was some discussion >>>>> about moving them to a hidden network namespace so that they are not visible from the default namespace. >>>>> I looked into this sometime back, but did not find the right kernel api to create a network namespace within >>>>> kernel. If so, we could use this mechanism to simulate a 1-netdev model. >>>> Yes, that's one possible implementation (IMHO the key is to make 1-netdev >>>> model as much transparent to a real NIC as possible, while a hidden netns is >>>> just the vehicle). However, I recall there was resistance around this >>>> discussion that even the concept of hiding itself is a taboo for Linux >>>> netdev. I would like to summon potential alternatives before concluding >>>> 1-netdev is the only solution too soon. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> -Siwei >>> Your scripts would not work at all then, right? >> At this point we don't claim images with such usage as SR-IOV live >> migrate-able. We would flag it as live migrate-able until this ethtool >> config issue is fully addressed and a transparent live migration solution >> emerges in upstream eventually. >> >> >> Thanks, >> -Siwei >>> >>>>>> -Siwei >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org >>> >> net_failover(kernel) | network.service (user) | systemd-udevd (user) >> --------------------------------------------------+------------------------------+-------------------------------------------- >> (standby virtio-net and net_failover | | >> devices created and initialized, | | >> i.e. virtnet_probe()-> | | >> net_failover_create() | | >> was done.) | | >> | | >> | runs `ifup ens3' -> | >> | ip link set dev ens3 up | >> net_failover_open() | | >> dev_open(virtnet_dev) | | >> virtnet_open(virtnet_dev) | | >> netif_carrier_on(failover_dev) | | >> ... | | >> | | >> (VF hot plugged in) | | >> ixgbevf_probe() | | >> register_netdev(ixgbevf_netdev) | | >> netdev_register_kobject(ixgbevf_netdev) | | >> kobject_add(ixgbevf_dev) | | >> device_add(ixgbevf_dev) | | >> kobject_uevent(&ixgbevf_dev->kobj, KOBJ_ADD) | | >> netlink_broadcast() | | >> ... | | >> call_netdevice_notifiers(NETDEV_REGISTER) | | >> failover_event(..., NETDEV_REGISTER, ...) | | >> failover_slave_register(ixgbevf_netdev) | | >> net_failover_slave_register(ixgbevf_netdev) | | >> dev_open(ixgbevf_netdev) | | >> | | >> | | >> | | received ADD uevent from netlink fd >> | | ... >> | | udev-builtin-net_id.c:dev_pci_slot() >> | | (decided to renamed 'eth0' ) >> | | ip link set dev eth0 name ens4 >> (dev_change_name() returns -EBUSY as | | >> ixgbevf_netdev->flags has IFF_UP) | | >> | | >> > Given renaming slaves does not work anyway: I was actually thinking what if we relieve the rename restriction just for the failover slave? What the impact would be? I think users don't care about slave being renamed when it's in use, especially the initial rename. Thoughts? > would it work if we just > hard-coded slave names instead? > > E.g. > 1. fail slave renames > 2. rename of failover to XX automatically renames standby to XXnsby > and primary to XXnpry That wouldn't help. The time when the failover master gets renamed, the VF may not be present. I don't like the idea to delay exposing failover master until VF is hot plugged in (probably subject to various failures) later. Thanks, -Siwei > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org