Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 22 Nov 2022 16:17:17 -0500 | Subject | Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] bonding: fix link recovery in mode 2 when updelay is nonzero | From | Jonathan Toppins <> |
| |
On 11/22/22 16:15, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote: > 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. >
If there are other issues with v2. I will gladly include these comments in a v3.
Thanks, -Jon
| |