Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 30 Sep 2018 09:14:14 +0200 | From | Jiri Pirko <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] team: set IFF_SLAVE on team ports |
| |
Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 04:04:26PM CEST, 3chas3@gmail.com wrote: > > >On 07/10/15 02:41, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 05:36:55PM CEST, jblunck@infradead.org wrote: >> > On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us> wrote: >> > > Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 11:58:34AM CEST, jblunck@infradead.org wrote: >> > > > The code in net/ipv6/addrconf.c:addrconf_notify() tests for IFF_SLAVE to >> > > > decide if it should start the address configuration. Since team ports >> > > > shouldn't get link-local addresses assigned lets set IFF_SLAVE when linking >> > > > a port to the team master. >> > > >> > > I don't want to use IFF_SLAVE in team. Other master-slave devices are >> > > not using that as well, for example bridge, ovs, etc. >> > > >> > >> > Maybe they need to get fixed too. I've used that flag because it is >> > documented as >> > a "slave of a load balancer" which describes what a team port is. >> > >> > >> > > I think that this should be fixed in addrconf_notify. It should lookup >> > > if there is a master on top and bail out in that case. >> > >> > There are other virtual interfaces that have a master assigned and want to >> > participate in IPv6 address configuration. >> >> Can you give me an example? > >I would like to revisit this patch (yes, I know it has been a while). I >believe the VRF implementation uses master to group the interfaces under >a single interface. > >I don't see a reason not to use IFF_SLAVE since team and bonding are fairly >similar.
Again, why do you need team port to have IFF_SLAVE flag? What do you want to achieve?
> >> > >> > Unless we want to have a cascade of conditionals testing the priv_flags in >> > addrconf_notify() this is asking for a new net_device_flags flag. >> > Maybe something >> > generic like IFF_L2PORT ? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Jan >> > >> > [ Jiri, sorry for getting that mail twice ] >> >> >>
| |