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

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