On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 15:14:55 -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:

On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 11:56:41AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:

quoted

On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 14:36:56 -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:  

quoted

quoted

It is a bit of a the chicken or the egg situation ;)  But users can
just blacklist, too.  Anyway, I think this is far better than module
parameters    

Sorry I'm a bit confused. What is better than what?  

I mean that blacklist net_failover or module param to disable
net_failover and handle in user space are better than trying to solve
the renaming at kernel level (either by adding module params that make
the kernel rename devices or letting user space change names of running
devices if they are slaves).
  

quoted

quoted

for twiddling kernel-based interface naming policy.. :S    

I see your point. But my point is slave names don't really matter, only
master name matters.  So I am not sure there's any policy worth talking
about here.  

Oh yes, I don't disagree with you, but others seems to want to rename
the auto-bonded lower devices.  Which can be done trivially if it was 
a daemon in user space instantiating the auto-bond.  We are just
providing a basic version of auto-bonding in the kernel.  If there are
extra requirements on policy, or naming - the whole thing is better
solved in user space.  

OK so it seems that you would be happy with a combination of the module
parameter disabling failover completely and renaming primary in kernel?
Did I get it right?

Not 100%, I'm personally not convinced that renaming primary in the
kernel is okay.