Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 22 Nov 2022 23:12:24 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] bonding: fix link recovery in mode 2 when updelay is nonzero | From | Nikolay Aleksandrov <> |
| |
On 22/11/2022 17:37, Jonathan Toppins wrote: > On 11/22/22 09:45, Paolo Abeni wrote: >> On Tue, 2022-11-22 at 08:36 -0500, Jonathan Toppins wrote: >>> On 11/22/22 05:59, Paolo Abeni wrote: >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> On Fri, 2022-11-18 at 15:30 -0500, Jonathan Toppins wrote: >>>>> Before this change when a bond in mode 2 lost link, all of its slaves >>>>> lost link, the bonding device would never recover even after the >>>>> expiration of updelay. This change removes the updelay when the bond >>>>> currently has no usable links. Conforming to bonding.txt section 13.1 >>>>> paragraph 4. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Toppins <jtoppins@redhat.com> >>>> >>>> Why are you targeting net-next? This looks like something suitable to >>>> the -net tree to me. If, so could you please include a Fixes tag? >>>> >>>> Note that we can add new self-tests even via the -net tree. >>>> >>> >>> I could not find a reasonable fixes tag for this, hence why I targeted >>> the net-next tree. >> >> When in doubt I think it's preferrable to point out a commit surely >> affected by the issue - even if that is possibly not the one >> introducing the issue - than no Fixes as all. The lack of tag will make >> more difficult the work for stable teams. >> >> In this specific case I think that: >> >> Fixes: 41f891004063 ("bonding: ignore updelay param when there is no active slave") >> >> should be ok, WDYT? if you agree would you mind repost for -net? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Paolo >> > > Yes that looks like a good one. I will repost to -net a v2 that includes changes to reduce the number of icmp echos sent before failing the test. > > Thanks, > -Jon >
One minor nit - could you please change "mode 2" to "mode balance-xor" ? It saves reviewers some grepping around the code to see what is mode 2. Obviously one has to dig in the code to see how it's affected, but still it is a bit more understandable. It'd be nice to add more as to why the link is not recovered, I get it after reading the code, but it would be nice to include a more detailed explanation in the commit message as well.
Thanks, Nik
| |