graceful kernel vf handling for vlan trunking #343
+59
−35
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Signed-off-by: Periyasamy Palanisamy <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Periyasamy Palanisamy <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Periyasamy Palanisamy <[email protected]>
pperiyasamy
requested review from
Bolodya1997,
edwarnicke and
denis-tingaikin
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The PR #322 is not sufficient to make VLAN trunking feature to work end to end as there is one more check done here which may not work when second ns client shows up (i.e. no kernel interface for VF on host net ns at this point). This issue was reproducible only today as its purely a timing issue when multiple clients are brought up together.
Now
skipDriverCheckflag can be configured fromsriov.configfile, once this PR is merged we may have to update deployments which usessriov.configfile./cc @JanScheurich I know you've already mentioned that PR # 322 was not an appropriate solution to fix this :) hope now the issue is addressed properly.