Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 22 Nov 2022 23:15:06 +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 23:12, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote: > 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 >
Ah, I just noticed I'm late to the party. :) Nevermind my comments, no need for a v3.
| |