[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <657157.1745639487@famine>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2025 20:51:27 -0700
From: Jay Vosburgh <jv@...sburgh.net>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
cc: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>,
Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Cosmin Ratiu <cratiu@...dia.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 net] bonding: assign random address if device address is
same as bond
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Apr 2025 16:44:52 -0700 Jay Vosburgh wrote:
>> The code flow is a little clunky in the "if (situation one) else
>> if (situation two) else goto skip_mac_set" bit, but I don't really have
>> a better suggestion that isn't clunky in some other way.
>>
>> This implementation does keep the already complicated failover
>> logic from becoming more complicated for this corner case.
>
>Any thoughts on whether we should route this as a fix or as a -next
>improvement? The commit under Fixes is almost old enough to drink.
I'm fine with -next, the hardware this option was originally
intended for was uncommon even then (IBM POWER ehea). I'm not aware of
any recent-ish devices with the issue this was solving (that multiple
ports of the NIC programmed with the same MAC made the hardware cranky),
so it's more of a correctness exercise in my mind.
-J
---
-Jay Vosburgh, jv@...sburgh.net
Powered by blists - more mailing lists