This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] tools/hotplug, Use udev rules instead of qem

To: Anthony PERARD <anthony.perard@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] tools/hotplug, Use udev rules instead of qemu script to setup the bridge.
From: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 11:52:39 +0100
Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <Stefano.Stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 03:53:29 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4C5C2EF8.1000309@xxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Organization: Citrix Systems, Inc.
References: <1280938265-12107-1-git-send-email-anthony.perard@xxxxxxxxxx> <1280938265-12107-3-git-send-email-anthony.perard@xxxxxxxxxx> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1008041835230.19809@kaball-desktop> <4C5C2EF8.1000309@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 2010-08-06 at 16:49 +0100, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> > Can we limit the amount of "if" introduced by this patch somehow?
> > If we use a different command (add instead of online), why do we
> need
> > the "if" under the online and offline cases?
> > If add is only used with tap devices, why do we need an if under
> add?
> The command come directly from the $ACTION in udev, and for some
> reason, this event is different in both cases. Here, I just check if
> we really want to setup a vif or a tap. This is too much? 

It could be that just handling one of online or add would be sufficient.
I don't really remember but when I made the patch for XCP which you are
basing this patch on I may just have been trying to avoid a large change
in behaviour and/or other knockon effects. It's equally possible that
one or the other type of device actually generates both types of event
or that I was being overly/unnecessarily conservative.

I think I'd recommend confirming the actual behaviour WRT event names of
both vif and tap devices on a few "important/interesting" kernel
versions before removing the extra if statements.

I wonder if we should be looking to begin transitioning the hotplug
events generated by netback to be consistent with those generated by
other network devices? (assuming there is consistency in general and the
the tun/tap driver is the correct one in this case)


Xen-devel mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>