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

Martin Kletzander mkletzan at redhat.com
Thu Nov 27 14:35:40 UTC 2014

On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 09:45:51AM +0100, Martin Kletzander wrote:
>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:
>>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,

Pushed now,

-------------- 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/20141127/3af2c72f/attachment-0001.sig>

More information about the libvir-list mailing list