From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexander Duyck Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] net: Add support for device specific address syncing Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 15:24:27 -0700 Message-ID: <5376901B.7040700@intel.com> References: <53765D5D.9040207@intel.com> <20140516.150115.1106293449904617860.davem@davemloft.net> <53766D3E.4080904@intel.com> <20140516.164728.2297526772904518777.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com, jpirko@redhat.com To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mga03.intel.com ([143.182.124.21]:42546 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752758AbaEPWY2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 May 2014 18:24:28 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20140516.164728.2297526772904518777.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 05/16/2014 01:47 PM, David Miller wrote: > From: Alexander Duyck > Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 12:55:42 -0700 > >> I can understand going into promisc on a sync failure, but why would you >> do it on an unsync failure, or are you saying that we would be clearing >> the flag in unsync? > > We should clear the promisc flag on unsync if the limitations are no > longer exceeded. > >> In general I intended for this to be called in set_rx_mode so if >> __dev_uc_sync returns an error indicating insufficient resources we have >> to force IFF_PROMISC on because adding a new address failed. We could >> also do the same thing for __dev_mc_sync and IFF_ALLMULTI. > > Right. > Okay, I think that all works. I'll probably resubmit it next week after it has gone though a bit more testing. Thanks, Alex