[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
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)
On 2/25/2019 6:05 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Yeah, the kernel should work with and without udev rename - typically the kernel is agnostic of upcoming rename. User may opt out for kernel provided names (particularly on older distros) then no rename would ever happen.On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 05:39:12PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: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, -SiweiYour 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.The hyper-v netvsc with 1-dev model uses a timeout to allow udev to do its rename. I proposed a patch to key state change off of the udev rename, but that patch was rejected.Of course that would mean nothing works without udev - was that the objection? Could you help me find that discussion pls?
I ever thought about this approach but didn't think it would fit. But, what is the historical reason that prevents slave from being renamed after being opened? Could we specialize a code path for this kernel created device, as net_failover shouldn't carry over any history burden?