[libvirt] [PATCH] Revert "ip link needs 'name' in 3.16 to create the veth pair"

[Martin Kletzander]

On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 09:02:28AM -0500, John Ferlan wrote:
>
>
>On 11/26/2014 08:21 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
>> On 11/26/2014 01:33 AM, Martin Kletzander wrote:
>>> This reverts commit 433b427ff853ab72d32573d415e6ec569b77c7cb.
>>>
>>> The patch was added in order to overcome a bug in iproute2 and since it
>>> was properly identified as a bug, particularly in openSUSE 13.2, and it
>>> is being worked on [1], the best solution for libvirt seems to be to
>>> keep the old behaviour.
>>>
>>> [1] https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907093
>>> ---
>>>  src/util/virnetdevveth.c | 4 ++--
>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> I'm 50:50 on this one.  The workaround case is arguably more legible,
>> and is understood by all versions of iproute2 (including the buggy SUSE
>> release), so it's not like it is that ugly of a workaround.  The revert
>> is clean if you want to do it, but I don't see any compelling reason
>> requiring us to revert.  Maybe someone else can swing the vote.
>>
>>
>>
>Given the following - I think I'd be more in favor of the revert.
>
>Perhaps not exactly the same thing, but consider the posix_fallocate()
>issue with NFS for which I tried to submit workaround patches for, but
>was instead asked to submit a bug against glibc, see:
>
>http://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2014-August/msg00491.html
>
>So we didn't accept a workaround in this case and although this iproute2
>issue has a much more expedient fix than posix_fallocate (still waiting,
>btw) - the decision was to leave the libvirt code 'buggy' until the root
>cause was fixed.
>
>So translate that here - if we revert this change then it seems for one
>version of iproute2 there's a bug.  Seems this is easily document-able
>if we remove the patch (as ugly as the documentation could be).
>
>It seems the issue in keeping the code as is runs the risk that there is
>some iproute2 that doesn't understand or process the 'name' syntax,
>which is an unknown and could cause "other" failures...
>
>Hence, my vote for revert
>

It looks like we have more people wanting the old behaviour, If
there's no new vote against that for few hours, I'm pushing this.

Thanks for discussing this,
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/attachments/20141127/068abdce/attachment-0001.sig>