Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Sun, 30 Sep 2018 09:14:14 +0200
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
To:     Chas Williams <3chas3@gmail.com>
Cc:     Jan Blunck <jblunck@infradead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] team: set IFF_SLAVE on team ports
Message-ID: <20180930071414.GF2209@nanopsycho.orion>
References: <1436435914-8903-1-git-send-email-jblunck@infradead.org>
 <20150709100727.GE2270@nanopsycho.orion>
 <CALe+Z03R_MPcgUSa8xoMeT5Sv3z8KwFhrtoYYzON=prfR-7hxQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150710064147.GA2204@nanopsycho.orion>
 <c674e681-9f7f-85c2-a578-a246d1ec9f45@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <c674e681-9f7f-85c2-a578-a246d1ec9f45@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.5 (2018-04-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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 ]
>> 
>> 
>>