From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Subject: Re: [PATCH] veth: Cleanly handle a missing peer_tb argument on creation. Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:48:07 -0600 Message-ID: References: <46E7F466.1060704@openvz.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Miller , Patrick McHardy , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Stephen Hemminger To: Pavel Emelyanov Return-path: Received: from ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com ([166.70.28.69]:51128 "EHLO ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965147AbXILOsn (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:48:43 -0400 In-Reply-To: <46E7F466.1060704@openvz.org> (Pavel Emelyanov's message of "Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:15:02 +0400") Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Pavel Emelyanov writes: >> + } >> >> - tbp = peer_tb; >> - } else >> - tbp = tb; > > The intention of this part was to get the same parameters for > peer as for the first device if no "peer" argument was specified > for ip utility. Does it still work? I know it is problematic because we try to assign the same name to both network devices, if we assign a name to the primary network device. That can't work. Beyond that I had some really weird crashes while testing this piece of code, especially when I did not specify a peer parameter. So it was just easier to avoid the problem with this patch then to completely root cause it. I think the easiest semantic is to not have any peer parameters if they were not specified, then to try and to figure out which subset of parameters to copy. If I hadn't been getting weird kernel crashes I would not have cared. Eric