Re: [PATCH net-next v12 1/5] net: Introduce generic failover module

["Samudrala, Sridhar" <sridhar.samudrala@intel.com>]

On 5/30/2018 7:52 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2018 16:06:58 -0700
> "Samudrala, Sridhar" <sridhar.samudrala@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.samudrala@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.

I specifically made sure not to remove IFF_SLAVE in the netvsc patch.


> NAK