Subject: Re: [PATCH net] failover: eliminate callback hell

From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2018 15:30:27 +0300

On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 09:25:12AM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 05:42:31AM CEST, [email-masked] wrote:
> >The net failover should be a simple library, not a virtual
> >object with function callbacks (see callback hell).
> 
> Why just a library? It should do a common things. I think it should be a
> virtual object. Looks like your patch again splits the common
> functionality into multiple drivers. That is kind of backwards attitude.
> I don't get it. We should rather focus on fixing the mess the
> introduction of netvsc-bonding caused and switch netvsc to 3-netdev
> model.

So it seems that at least one benefit for netvsc would be better
handling of renames.

Question is how can this change to 3-netdev happen?  Stephen is
concerned about risk of breaking some userspace.

Stephen, this seems to be the usecase that IFF_HIDDEN was trying to
address, and you said then "why not use existing network namespaces
rather than inventing a new abstraction". So how about it then? Do you
want to find a way to use namespaces to hide the PV device for netvsc
compatibility?

-- 
MST